Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
6 De Minimus Settlement offer
IIIII IIIII D�I� II _ G,7;�,- TRUCKEE Public Utility District Staff Report To: Board of Directors From: Bob Quinn, Electric Superintendent Date: 22 June 2001 De Minimus Settlement Offer In a staff report dated October 14, 1999, 1 referenced a previous report of September 9, 1999. In those reports, the Board was notified of a PCB superfund cleanup that would be taking place in Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas and the fact that the Truckee Donner PUD would be involved to some extent. At that time our attorneys advised us to wait and not accept the then offered De Minimus settlement. On June 8, 2001, the District received another De Minimus settlement offer from the United States Environmental Protection Agency. This offer, the latest and last, places the cost of cleanup to be $34,752,000 and the TDPUD's settlement at either $87,383.43 or$116,511.24. Two different costs are based on two options: Option 1 $87,383.43 is costs to be paid by the TDPUD based on the cleanup estimate of $34,752,000 not to exceed $60,000,000. Should costs exceed the $60M, the District would be liable for shared costs of the amount over the $60M. (Example: Cost of cleanup is $61M, the District is liable for shared costs of$1M.) In effect, this option gets the TDPUD off the hook but with a re-opener. Option 2 $116,511.24 is costs to be paid by the TDPUD with no re-opener should costs exceed $60M. TDPUD's liability is ended. Attorney's Opinion I talked with Matt Ward, one of the attorneys with Spiegel & McDiarmid who has been working on this for us for the past several years, and his advice is as follows: • The estimate of cleanup has been produced over a number of years by major players in the cleanup and is not a "by the seat of your pants' estimate. The cost estimate is about as accurate as possible. • Should costs exceed the amount of $60M, TDPUD's share would probably not equal the difference in costs between options 1 and 2. • This is the last offer the District will receive for buy out. • This is the best offer the District will receive. • This offer must be recognized within 45 days of receipt (June 8tn) • He would accept the offer outlined in Option #1 Recommendation Based on the conversation with our Washington attorneys, I would recommend the District accept the EPA's De Minimus settlement offer of$87,383.43. J�,t£O ST„fS >� 2 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VII 901 NORTH 5THSTREET KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101 REC'D J'UIL t � � June 8, 2001 CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Robert Quinn Truckee Donner Pud PO Box 309 Truckee, CA 96160 Re: PCB Treatment, Inc. Superfund Site De Minimis Settlement Offer Dear Mr. Quinn: This letter contains an offer to enter into a de minimis settlement with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to resolve any potential liability that you (or the party you represent) may have in connection with the PCB Treatment, Inc. Superfund Site (Site). Enclosed is an Administrative Order on Consent authorized under Section 122(g) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), which constitutes the agreement EPA is offering to some of the de minimis parties at the Site. Site Activities Since May 2000 On June 8, 2000, EPA proposed that removal actions be undertaken at 2100 Wyandotte Street in Kansas City, Missouri and 45 Ewing Street in Kansas City, Kansas to abate the PCB contamination. On August 3, 2000, following a public comment period, EPA issued two Action Memoranda which selected the removal actions for the Site that had been previously proposed by EPA. These are enclosed, along with the Responsiveness Summary and a Fact Sheet. The authorized removal actions include the demolition of both buildings and the excavation of soils surrounding the buildings. The estimated cost of these activities is $14,752,000. EPA will be extending an offer to the major contributors of the PCB-contaminated materials that were sent to the Site, requesting that they implement these removal actions. The major contributors include RECYCLEd private parties and Federal Agencies. In August 2000, EPA met with the major contributors to discuss elements that will be part of a future settlement offer. In addition, in response to concems from these parties, EPA reviewed its database again. Also in August 2000, EPA made a determination regarding the parties who qualify for a de minimis cash-out settlement. Consistent with EPA policy, all parties who sent less than .8% of the total volume of wastes, based on their allocated weight, qualify for de minimis settlements at this Site. Because there are so many potential de minimis settlors, EPA separated them into two groups for purposes of managing the settlements efficiently. On August 9, 2000 EPA extended settlement offers to potentially responsible parties (PRPs) whose weighted volume of materials sent to the Site is between .001% and .002% of the total weighted volume of the wastes. The Agency applied the formula that had been finalized in its May 2000 correspondence to all PRPs and requested a premium of 100%. Seventy-one PRPs accepted the offer, which became effective on December 10, 2000. A large number of other parties qualify for a de minimis settlement. The weighted volume of materials these parties sent to the Site is between .003% and .8%. You are receiving this letter because you or the party you represent falls into that range. Elements of the Settlement Offer Typically, a de minimis settlement includes a base payment and a premium. In this case, the base payment for a generator was derived from a formula. EPA provided a draft of the formula to all PRPs in November 1999 and invited comment on it. After evaluating responses, EPA made certain modifications to the formula, and communicated that in correspondence to all PRPs in May 2000. EPA made minor adjustments to correct errors in November 2000 and then finalized the allocated share of each PRP. EPA calculated total Site costs (actual past costs and estimated future costs). These are the costs EPA incurred in its investigations at the Site, the costs incurred by PRPs who performed a Site Characterization and Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) under an Administrative Order on Consent with EPA, and the estimate of the future cleanup costs. These costs are as follows: $ 1,882,390 EPA past costs 1,000,000 Estimate of EPA future costs 1,035,942 PRP past costs (characterization& evaluation) 34,752,000 Removal Action cost estimate $38,670,332 TOTAL (past and estimated future) EPA then reduced the total Site costs as a means of recognizing that the owner/operator of the Site, PCB Treatment, Inc., as well as certain generators, would be PRPs if they still existed as viable entities. This reduction for their share is consistent with EPA's Orphan Share Policy, implemented by EPA to provide greater fairness at sites where a share of liability may be equitably attributed to parties who are insolvent or defunct. The orphan share at this Site consists of EPA's I past costs and EPA's estimate of future oversight costs, listed above, which total $2,882,390_ EPA reduced the total Site costs by that amount to arrive at $35,787,942 as the amount used to calculate each PRP's allocated share. As indicated above, EPA includes a premium in de minimis settlements to cover the uncertainties of estimating future costs. In this case, there is a potential for costs to exceed the estimates significantly. Because of the uncertainty of the cost overruns, EPA is offering the de minimis parties two choices of a premium: i) a 100% premium with no cost reopener and ii) a 50% premium with a reopener if there are cost overruns that exceed the estimated removal action costs of$34,752,000 and reach $60,000,000. The amount that you will be required to pay to enter into this de minimis settlement is set forth next to your name in Attachment 1, attached to the agreement.' If the reopener is triggered, the de minimis parties who selected the 50% premium will owe their individual percentage share of the allocated weight, multiplied by the amount of removal costs incurred which exceed $60,000,000. To assist you in your decision regarding the premium, EPA has enclosed with this letter a description of potential additional expenses not included in the EE/CA cost estimate. The enclosed de minimis settlement provides the settlors contribution protection from private party litigation and a full covenant not to sue by the United States except in certain circumstances defined in Section IX. Pursuant to Section 122(g) CERCLA, in order for this settlement to become effective, the United States Attorney General must approve it. In addition, notice of the settlement must appear in the Federal Register and the public given thirty days to provide comment. The settlement becomes final if the United States Attorney General approves it and EPA, after reviewing the public comments, concludes that the comments received do not require modification of or withdrawal from the agreement. EPA will then notify the settlors that the settlement is final; the settlors will have thirty days from the effective date to transmit the monies owed. Accepting the Offer If you or your client is interested in entering into this settlement, please arrange for signature by the appropriate party and return only the original signed signature page and a copy to Norma Tharp, Legal Assistant, at the address in this letterhead. The signature is due within forty- five (45) days of receipt of this letter. There are two signature pages -- one for a 50% premium ' EPA indicated in its May 8, 2000 letter to the PRPs that with regard to broker customers, the Agency would assign responsibility for the customer's equivalent weight equally between the broker and the broker customer. As a point of clarification, EPA will be proceeding in that manner provided that both the customer and the broker still exist as viable parties. If either the customer or the broker is defunct, the existing viable party would pay the customer's full share. EPA regrets any confusion that may have been caused by the earlier correspondence. EPA is taking into account the effect that insolvent and defunct parties have on the remaining PRPs, and for that reason is reducing the total amount of costs to reflect the "orphan share". 3 and one for a 100% premium. Please sign the page that matches your selection of premium. As stated in the paragraph above, no monies are due until thirty (30) days after EPA issues notice that the settlement is effective. EPA anticipates that date to occur in the late Fall of 2001. Conclusion This settlement offer is extended to you to protect your interests as a small volume contributor, to avoid litigation, and to minimize the transaction costs of negotiations. If you or your client chooses not to enter into this agreement, EPA will consider such party to be jointly and severally liable with other non-settlors for any unrecovered costs at the PCB Treatment, Inc. Superfund Site. While the settlement amount is set forth in the Attachment to the Consent Order, please note that EPA does not intend the Superfund settlement process to result in the closing of a business or its inability to conduct its pnmary and basic business activities. For this reason, an ability to pay settlement is permitted if the business demonstrates that payment of what would otherwise be its share of liability for response costs is likely to create an extreme financial hardship. Additionally, the ability-to-pay settlement should also meet requirements contained in the guidance which can be located at: http://es.epa.gov/oeca/osre/950500-1.html If you have any questions regarding this proposal, you may reach me at 913/551-7255 or Jenna Wischmeyer, Assistant Regional Counsel, at 913/551-7157. Sincerely, Audrey B. Asher Senior Assistant Regional Counsel enclosures cc: Wayne Ault, DOJ, Environmental Enforcement Section Melaine Williams, DOJ, Environmental Defense Section Russell Selman, Counsel for PCB Treatment, Inc. Steering Committee 4 H POTENTIAL COST OVERRUNS PCB TREATMENT, INC. SUPERFUN'D SITE The de minimis offer includes a choice of premiums -- 50%with a cost re-opener if costs exceed the EE/CA estimate of$14,752,000 and reach $60,000,000 or 100% with no cost reopener. The following is a list of potential cost overruns that were not included in the EE/CA cost estimate. It should also be noted that the EE/CA estimates were based on 1999 figures; even if no new expenses were incurred, inflation would affect the total set forth in the EE/CA. 1. Dust suppression measures ($500,000 - $1,000,000) EPA is assuming that demisting will be effective. If it is not,however, other measures will need to be used. For example, it may be necessary to enclose the area being demolished and use a vacuum to create negative pressure. Blowers may have to be installed to pull air out of the enclosed area. The installation of blowers will increase costs. Additionally, suppressing dust in this manner will result in a reduction in size of the area that can be dismantled, causing the demolition to proceed more slowly. By slowing down the demolition,the cost of labor will increase as the time to complete the action will lengthen. Alternatively, if the misting does not work, other materials besides water may have to be used. This can result in runoff which will then have to be stored, treated, and disposed of, perhaps in a POTW, which would charge for the disposal. If there is a dust release, other buildings may also have to be cleaned, resulting in additional costs not estimated here. 2. Continuous air monitoring ($250,000 - $2,000,000) In addition to dust control measures, continuous air monitoring may be required during demolition. It may be necessary to set up two to six stations per building for a period of approximately eight months (including two weeks before and after demolition to establish baseline data).Daily sampling is required for PCB air emissions; therefore the monitoring costs would increase significantly 3. Possible interruptions in transportation lines serving the adjoining businesses ($35,000 - $150,000) The EE/CA cost estimate included the cost of installing another spur to Cargill (on Ewing Street)when the present spur becomes unusable. It may be necessary to install a second spur for other businesses near the Ewing building besides Cargill. It may also be necessary to find a temporary unloading facility for Cargill's rail cars and transport the raw materials by i In the Matter of PCB Treatment,Ina Superfund Site truck. Other costs that had not been included in the EE/CA estimate relate to leasing space for Cargill so that the trucks delivering goods to Cargill will have space to turn around after unloading. This will be necessary because Ewing Street will be blocked during the demolition activities. 4. Potential exposure of neighboring property owners ($520,000 - $780,000) There is a risk of potential impacts of the response action on neighboring properties. Staging the demolition and removal of demolition waste will affect neighboring business owners' access to rail lines, roads, and parking facilities. While the EE/CA attempts to quantify and account for these impacts (e.g., by including costs of alternative delivery methods for one neighbor of the Ewing building), the actual costs of compensating neighbors could be substantially higher than anticipated in the EE/CA. 5. Debris disposal costs ($1,760,000-$2,930,000) The EE/CA report contemplates a wide range of potential debris disposal costs, based on the percentage of material. PCB contaminated wastes will be disposed of at a TSCA landfill. The EE/CA assumes all the remaining debris could be disposed of at a Subtitle D (non- hazardous waste) landfill. However,while the recent PCB Disposal Rule amendments do permit the landfilling of some debris from the demolition of PCB-impacted structures, in reality, many Subtitle D landfill operators refuse to receive such materials out of concern over potential leachate contamination. It may not be possible to find acceptable non-TSCA disposal sites in reasonable proximity to the Site, with the result that TSCA disposal of all debris, while typically more expensive than traditional landfilling, could be the only economically reasonable alternative. 6. Potential sub-surface contamination($1,000,000 to $2,000,000) The cost estimates in the EE/CA anticipate removal of the upper three feet and disposal of subsurface walls of both buildings. However, it does not anticipate removal of the basement floor slabs or lower basement walls. Additionally, the EE/CA does not anticipate potential migration of contamination below these surfaces. It is possible that when the excavation begins, the parties performing the work will find that PCB or other contamination has migrated through the concrete slabs to soil and substructure units such as pilings and caps. Removal and disposal of any such contaminated media and structures would result in substantial unanticipated costs. 7. Traffic interruption ($60,000 - $90,000) It is possible that the response will have to include the substantial costs of directing traffic in the area of the Site on streets designated for transportation of demolition debris. 2 i I In the Matter of PCB Treatment,Inc. Superfund Site - Specifically, it is estimated that between 30 and 40 trucks per day of debris will exit the Site (both buildings). In order to efficiently move these trucks to interstate highways, three or more flag crews may be required, for the full four to six months of the demolition. $. Rental of adjacent property ($240,000 - $500,000) The methodical demolition of the Wyandotte and Ewing buildings may require the rental of land for the storage of equipment associated with the removal action during the demolition and removal activities. The EE/CA estimate includes some rental costs but may not include all rental costs that will be incurred. 9. Disposal Costs of Water Containing PCBs($200,000 - $300,000) The Unified Government of Kansas City,Kansas, Wyandotte County will not accept any wastewater into its sewer system that has or has had PCBs as a constituent. PCB impacted water will be generated during dust control operations at the Ewing building, which will require on- site containerization, manifested transportation, and disposal off-Site. These costs were not accounted for in the EE/CA. 10. Transportation costs($550,000 - $1,740,000) Due to the rise in fuel costs, the transportation costs could exceed the EE/CA estimate by 30% or higher. 11. Asbestos and lead paint abatement($500,000- $750,000) Data indicate that lead paint and asbestos is present in the structure of both buildings therefore necessitating asbestos and lead paint abatements. These expenses were not included in the EE/CA estimate. 12. Additional sampling for disposal ($250,000 - $750,000) An allowance was included in the EE/CA for additional sampling for disposal purposes. However, it will not be known exactly what will need to be included in the waste profile until the disposal firms are contacted. More extensive PCB characterization as well as other chemical analyses could be required. The frequency of this characterization and additional cost for analysis could be much higher than the estimate included in the EE/CA.. 3 In the Matter of PCB Treatment,Inc. Superfund Site 13. Railroad costs ($75,000 - $150,000) Assumptions were made in the EEICA regarding the removal and replacement of spur lines at both locations. There may be other unanticipated costs associated with the removal and replacement of the tracks. 14. Error in EPA's Enforcement Action Memorandum ($1,450,000 - $1,550,000) In the Action Memorandum issued for the Ewing location, the costs associated with transportation of all debris was inadvertently omitted. 15. Other unknown expenses may include costs associated with rebuilding parts of utility lines if these lines are impaired during the performance of the work. 4 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VII 901 NORTH FIFTH STREET KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101 IN THE MATTER OF PCB TREATMENT, INC. } SUPERFUND SITE ) 2100 Wyandotte Street ) Kansas City, Missouri ) 45 Ewing Street ) EPA Docket No. Kansas City, Kansas ) CERCLA-07-2001-0008 Proceeding under Section ) ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 122 (g) (4) of the Comprehensive) ON CONSENT Environmental Response, ) Compensation, and Liability ) Act of 1980 , as amended, ) 42 U.S .C. § 9622 (g) (4) ) } I . JURIS_ DEN 1 . This Administrative Order on Consent ("Consent Order" ) is issued pursuant to the authority vested in the President of the United States by Section 122 (g) (4) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 , as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ("CERCLA" ) , 42 U.S .C . § 9622 (g) (4) , to reach settlements in actions under Section 106 or 107 of CERCLA, 42 U. S .C . §§ 9606 or 9607 . The authority vested in the President has been delegated to the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA" ) by Executive Order 12580 , 52 Fed. Reg. 2923 (Jan. 29 , 1987) and further delegated to the Regional Administrators of the EPA by the EPA Delegation No . 14-14-E (issued Sept . 13 , 1987, modified by memorandum June 17 , 1988) . In the Matter of PCB Treatment,Inc. Superfund Site,EPA Docket No. CERCLA-07-2001-0008 2 . This Administrative Order on Consent is issued to the parties listed in Attachment 1 ("Respondents" ) , attached to and incorporated into this Order. Respondents agree to undertake all actions required by this Consent Order. Respondents further consent to and will not contest the EPA' s jurisdiction to issue this Consent Order or to enforce its terms . 3 . EPA and Respondents agree that the actions undertaken by Respondents in accordance with this Consent Order do not constitute an admission of any liability by any Respondent . Respondents do not admit, and retain the right to controvert in any subsequent proceedings other than proceedings to implement or enforce this Consent Order, the validity of the Findings of Facts or Determinations contained in Sections IV and V, respectively, of this Consent Order. II . STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 4 . By entering into this Consent Order, the mutual objectives of the EPA and Respondents are : a. to reach a final settlement between EPA and Respondents with respect to the Site pursuant to Section 122 (g) of CERCLA, 42 U.S .C. § 9622 (g) , that allows Respondents to make a cash payment , including a premium, to resolve their alleged civil liability under Section 107 of CERCLA, 42 U. S .C. § 9607 , for response costs incurred and to be incurred at or in connection with the Site, thereby reducing litigation relating to the Site; b. to simplify any remaining administrative and judicial enforcement activities concerning the Site by eliminating a substantial number of potentially responsible parties from further involvement at the Site; and C . to obtain settlement with Respondents for their fair share of response costs incurred and to be incurred at or in connection with the Site by the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund, and by private parties, and to provide for full and complete contribution protection for Respondents with regard to the Site pursuant to Sections 113 (f) (2) and 122 (g) (5) of CERCLA, 42 U. S . C. §§ 9613 (f) (2) and 9622 (g) (5) . 2 In the Matter of PCB Treatment,Inc.Superfund Site,EPA Docket No. CERCLA-07-2001-0008 III . DEFINITIONS 5 . Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, terms used in this Consent Order that are defined in CERCLA or in regulations promulgated under CERCLA shall have the meaning assigned to them in the statute or regulations . Whenever the terms listed below are used in this Consent Order, the following definitions shall apply: a . "CERCLA" shall mean the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 , as amended, 42 U. S . C. § 9601, et sea. b . "Consent Order" or "Order" shall mean this Administrative Order on Consent and all attachments attached hereto. In the event of conflict between this Order and any attachment, the Order shall control . C . "Day" shall mean a calendar day. In computing any period of time under this Consent Decree, where the last day would fall on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday, the period shall run until the close of business of the next working day. d. "EPA" shall mean the United States Environmental Protection Agency and any successor departments, agencies or instrumentalities . e . "EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund" shall mean the Hazardous Substance Superfund established by the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S .C. § 9507 . f . "Interest" shall mean interest at the current rate specified for interest on investments of the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund established by 26 U. S.C. § 9507, compounded annually on October 1 of each year, in accordance with 42 U. S .C. § 9607 (a) . g. "Paragraph" shall mean a portion of this Consent Order identified by an Arabic numeral . h. "Parties" shall mean EPA and the Respondents . 3 In the.,Vatter of PCB Treatment,Inc. Superfund Site,EPA Docket No. CERCLA-07-2001-0008 i . "Respondents" shall mean those persons, corporations, or other entities listed in Attachment 1 . j . "Response costs" shall mean all costs of "response" as that term is defined by Section 101 (25) of CERCLA, 42 U. S .C . § 9601 (25) . k. "Section" shall mean a portion of this Consent Order identified by a Roman numeral . 1 . "Site" shall mean the PCB Treatment, Inc . Superfund Site, consisting of two properties , one located at 45 Ewing Street in Kansas City, Wyandotte County, Kansas, and its surrounding soils, and the other located at 2100 Wyandotte Street in Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri and its surrounding soils. The legal description of each facility is attached as Attachment 2 . M. "United States" shall mean the United States of America, including its departments, agencies and instrumentalities . IV. FINDINGS OF FACT 6 . The Site consists of two buildings that were used by PCB Treatment, Inc . and its subsidiaries or affiliates to treat and store polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCBs" ) present in used transformers, capacitors, and other materials and equipment . 7 . PCB Treatment, Inc . and its subsidiaries or affiliates operated at 2100 Wyandotte Street in Kansas City, Missouri, from 1982 through 1987 and at 45 Ewing Street in Kansas City, Kansas from 1984 through 1987 . 8 . The treatment and storage of materials contaminated with PCBs resulted in the release or threat of release of PCBs at both the Wyandotte Street and the Ewing Street locations . 9 . As a result of the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at the Site, EPA conducted response actions, including the oversight of parties performing a Site Characterization (SC) and Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) pursuant to Administrative Order on Consent, EPA Docket 4 In the;Matter of PCB Treatment, Inc. Superfund Site,EPA Docket No. CERCLA-07-2001-0008 No . VIZ-96-F-0018 , from 1995 to the present . This work was performed pursuant to Section 104 of CERCLA, 42 U. S .C. § 9604 , and the National Contingency Plan, 40 C. F.R. § 300 .415 . On the basis of all Site information available to EPA, including the results of the SC and EE/CA, EPA determined that further response actions were necessary to address the release and threatened release of hazardous substances from the Site . 10 . In performing response actions, the United States incurred approximately $2 , 000, 000 in costs to date . EPA estimates that approximately $16, 000 , 000 will be incurred in performing further response actions at Wyandotte Street and approximately $19, 000 , 000 will be incurred in performing further response actions at Ewing Street . , 11 . Each Respondent listed in Attachment 1 generated or transported materials contaminated with hazardous substances that were sent to PCB Treatment, Inc . 12 . The number of pounds of materials generated or transported by each Respondent does not exceed 733 , 190 allocated pounds, or eight-tenths of a percent ( . S%) of the allocated weight of all materials containing hazardous substances sent to PCB Treatment, Inc . for disposal; and the hazardous substances contributed by each Respondent to the Site are not significantly more toxic or of significantly greater hazardous effect than other hazardous substances at the Site. 13 . The payment required to be made by each Respondent pursuant to this Consent Order is a minor portion of the United States' costs . V. DETERMINATIONS 14 . Based upon the Findings of Fact set forth above and on the administrative record for this Site, the EPA has determined that : a. Each building making up the Site is a "facility" as that term is defined in Section 101 (9) of CERCLA, 42 U. S .C . § 9601 (911 . 5 In the Matter of PCB Treatment,Inc. Superfund Site,EPA Docket No. CERCLA-07-2001-0008 b. Respondents are each "persons" as that term is defined - in Section 101 (21) of CERCLA, 42 U.S .C . § 9601 (21) . c . Each Respondent is a "potent: ally responsible Party„ within the meaning of Section 122 (g) (1) of CERCLA, 42 U. S .C. § 9622 (g) (1) . d. PCBs are "hazardous substances" within the meaning of Section 101 (14) of CERCLA, 42 U.S .C . § 9601 (14) and the NCP, 40 C. F.R. § 302 . 4 . e . There has been an actual or threatened "release" of a "hazardous substance" from the Site as those terms are defined in Section 101 (22) and (14) of CERCLA, 42 U. S .C. §§ 9601 (22) and (14) . f . The actual or threatened release of hazardous substances at the Site has caused and will continue to cause the incurrence of response costs at the Site. g. Prompt settlement with Respondents is practicable and in the public interest within the meaning of Section 122 (g) (1) of 42 U. S .C. § 9622 (g) (1) . h. As to each Respondent, this Consent Order involves only a minor portion of the response costs at the site within the meaning of Section 122 (g) (1) of CERCLA, 42 U. S .C. § 9622 (g) (1) . i . Respondents are eligible for a de minimis settlement pursuant to Section 122 (g) (1) (A) of CERCLA, 42 U. S .C. § 9622 (g) (1) (A) . The amount of hazardous substances contributed to the Site by each Respondent and the toxic or other hazardous effects of the hazardous substances contributed to the Site by each Respondent is minimal in comparison to other hazardous substances at the Site within the meaning of Section 122 (g) (1) (A) of CERCLA, 42 U. S .C. § 9622 (g) (1) (A) . 6 In the Matter of PCB Treatment,Inc. Superfund Site,EPA Docket No. CERCLA-07-2001-0008 VI . ORDER 15 . Based upon the administrative record for this Site and the Findings of Fact and Determinations set forth above, and in consideration of the promises and covenants set forth herein, it is hereby AGREED TO AiM ORDERED: VII . PAYMENT 16 . Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Consent Order, Respondents shall each pay one of the two amounts designated on the same line as their name appears in Attachment 1 . 17 . Each Respondent' s payment includes an amount for: a) past response costs incurred in performing a Site Characterization and Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis at the Site; b) future response costs to be incurred at or in connection with the Site; and b) a premium to cover the risks and uncertainties associated with this settlement . 18 . As shown in Attachment 1, Respondents shall pay either a fifty percent (50%) premium with a cost overrun reopener if the removal costs exceed $60, 000, 000 or a one hundred percent (100%) premium with no cost overrun reopener. Regardless of which premium Respondents select, all Respondents are subject to the recpeners described in Section XI (Reservation of Rights by the United States) . If the cost overrun premium is triggered, Respondents who chose the fifty percent (50%) premium shall pay a percentage of the costs over $60, 000, 000 equal to their percent of the total allocated weight of all materials containing hazardous substances sent to PCB Treatment, Inc . for disposal . 19 . The total amount to be paid by each Respondent pursuant to Attachment 1 shall be deposited in the "PCB Treatment, Inc . Special Account" within the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund to be retained and used to conduct or finance response actions at or in connection with the Site, or transferred by EPA to the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund. Each check shall reference the name and address of the party making the payment, the PCB Treatment, Inc . Superfund Site name, EPA In the Matter of PCB Treatment,Inc. Superfund Site,EPA Docket No. CERCLA-07-2001-0008 Region VII , the Site Spill ID Numbers 07RJ and 07RK, and the EPA Docket Number for this action and shall be sent to : Hazardous Substances Superfund United States Environmental Protection Agency Attention: Region VII , Superfund Accounting Post Office Box # 360748M Pittsburgh, PA 15251 20 . Respondents shall simultaneously send a copy of the check to : Ms . Norma Tharp, Legal Assistant - Office of Regional Counsel , U. S . Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIZ , 901 N. Fifth Street, Kansas City, Kansas, 66101 . VIII . FAILURE TO MAKE PAYMENT 21 . If any Respondent fails to make full payment within the time required by Paragraph 16, that Respondent shall pay Interest on the unpaid balance. In addition, if any Respondent fails to make full payment as required by Paragraph 16, the United States may, in addition to any other available remedies or sanctions, bring an action against that Respondent seeking injunctive relief to compel payment and/or seeking civil penalties under Section 122 (1) of CERCLA, 42 U. S.C. § 9622 (1) , for failure to make timely payment . IX. CERTIFICATION OF RESPONDENT 22 . By signing this Consent Order, each Respondent certifies, individually, that, to the best of its knowledge and belief, it has : a. conducted a thorough, comprehensive, good faith search for documents, and has fully and accurately disclosed to EPA all information currently in its possession, or in the possession of its officers, directors, employees, contractors or agents, which relates in any way to the ownership, operation, generation, treatment, transportation or to the ownership, possession, generation, treatment, transportation, storage or disposal of hazardous substances, pollutants , or contaminants at or in connection with the Site; 9 In the Matter of PCB Treatment,Inc. Superfund Site,EPA DockeuVa. CERCLA-0?-2001-0008 b . not altered, mutilated, discarded, destroyed or otherwise disposed of any records, documents , or other information relating to its potential liability regarding the Site since receipt of any information request letter from the EPA pursuant to Section 104 (e) of CERCLA, 42 U. S . C . § 9604 (a) , notification of potential liability by EPA, or any other correspondence between EPA and Respondent regarding the Site; C . fully complied with any and all EPA requests for information regarding the Site pursuant to Sections 104 (e) of CERCLA, 42 U. S .C. § 9604 (e) ; and d. has not contributed an allocated weight of more than 733 , 190 pounds of materials to PCB Treatment, Inc . for disposal between 1982 and 1987 . Provision of false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations to the United States may subject any Respondent to criminal penalties under 18 U.S .C. § 1001 . X. COVENANTS NOT TO SUE 23 . In consideration of the payments that will be made by Respondents under the terms of this Consent Order, and except as specifically provided in Section XI (Reservations of Rights by United States) , the United States covenants not to sue or take administrative action against Respondents for any and all civil liability for injunctive relief or reimbursement of response costs pursuant to Sections 106 (a) or 107 (a) of CERCLA, 42 U. S .C. §§ 9606 (a) or 9607 (a) , relating to the Site . 24 . With respect to present and future liability, these covenants not to sue shall take effect upon receipt by the EPA of the payment as required by Paragraph 16, including any Interest due under Paragraph 21 . These covenants not to sue Respondents are conditioned upon the complete and satisfactory performance by Respondents of all obligations under this Consent Order; and the veracity of the information provided by and certifications made by Respondents to EPA relating to Respondents' involvement with the Site . These covenants not to sue extend only to each Respondent and do not extend to any other person. 9 In the Matter of PCB Treatment,Inc. Superfund Site,EPA Docket No. CERCLA-07-2001-0008 XI . RESERVATIONS OF RIGHTS BY UNITED STATES 25 . The covenant not to sue by the EPA set forth in Paragraph 23 does not pertain to any matters other than those expressly specified in said Paragraph 23 . The United States , including the EPA, reserves , and this Consent Order is without prejudice to, all rights against Respondents with respect to all other matters, including but not limited to the following: a . liability for failure to meet a requirement of this Consent Order; b. criminal liability; c . liability for damages or injury to, destruction of, or loss of the natural resources; or d. liability arising from any future arrangement for disposal or treatment of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant at the Site after the effective date of this Consent Order. 26 . Notwithstanding any other provision in this Consent Order, the United States reserves, and this Consent Order is without prejudice to, the right to institute judicial or administrative proceedings against any individual Respondent seeking to compel that Respondent to reimburse the United States for additional response costs, if information is discovered which indicates that such Respondent no longer qualifies as a de minimis party at the Site, because Respondent contributed more than . 8% of the total allocated weight of materials to the Site, or contributed hazardous substances to the Site which are significantly more toxic or are of significantly greater hazardous effect than other hazardous substances at the Site . XII . COVENANT NOT TO SUE BY RESPONDENTS 27 , Respondents covenant not to sue and agree not to assert any claims or causes of action against the United States or its contractors or employees with respect to the Site or this Consent Order including, but not limited to : 10 In the Matter of PCB Treatment,Inc. Superfund Site,EPA Docket No. CERCLA-07-2001-0008 a. any direct or indirect claim for reimbursement from the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund based on Sections 106 (b) (2) , 107 , 111 , 112 , or 113 of CERCLA, 42 U. S . C. §§ 9606 (b) (2) , 9607 , 9611, 9612 , or 9613 , or any other provision of law; b. any claims arising out of response activities at the Site; and C . any claim against the United States pursuant to Sections 107 and 113 of CERCLA, 42 U. S .C . §§ 9607 and 9613 , relating to the Site. 28 . Nothing in this, Consent Order shall be deemed to constitute preauthorization or approval of a claim within the meaning of Section 111 of CERCLA, 42 U. S .C. § 9611, or 40 C.F.R. 300 . 700 (d) . 29 . Respondents covenant not to sue and agree not to assert any claims or causes of action against each other with regard to the Site including any or all claims pursuant to Sections 107 and 113 of CERCLA, 42 U. S .C. §§ 9607 and 9613 . XIII . EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT/CONTRIBUTION PROTECTION 30 . Nothing in this Consent Order shall be construed to create any rights in, or grant any cause of action to, any person not a Party to this Consent Order. The United States and Respondents each reserve any and all rights (including, but not limited to, any right to contribution) , defenses, claims, demands, and causes of action which each Party may have with respect to any matter, transaction, or occurrence relating in any way to the Site against any person not a Party hereto. 31 . In any subsequent administrative or judicial proceeding initiated by the United States for injunctive relief, recovery of response costs , or other relief relating to the Site, Respondents shall not assert, and may not maintain, any defense or claim based upon the principles of waiver, res judicata, collateral estoppel, issue preclusion, claim-splitting, or other defenses based upon any contention that the claims raised in the subsequent proceeding were or should have been brought in the 11 In the Matter of PCB Treatment,Inc. Superfund Site,EPA Docket No. CERCLA-07-2001-0008 instant action; provided, however, that nothing in this Paragraph affects the enforceability of the covenant not to sue included in Paragraph 23 . 32 . The Parties agree that each Respondent is entitled, as of the effective date of this Consent Order, to protection from contribution actions or claims as provided by Sections 113 (f) (2) and 122 (g) (5) of CERCLA, 42 U. S .C . §§ 9613 (f) (2) and 9622 (g) (5) for "matters addressed" in this Consent Order. The "matters addressed" in this Consent Order are all response actions taken by the United States, and all response costs incurred and to be incurred by the United States and by private parties, at or in connection with the Site.• XIV. PARTIES BOUND 33 . This Consent Order shall apply to and be binding upon EPA and upon Respondents and their heirs, directors, officers, employees, agents, successors, and assigns . Any change in ownership or corporate or other legal status of a Respondent, including, but not limited to, any transfer of assets or real or personal property, shall in no way alter such Respondent' s responsibilities under this Consent Order. Each signatory to this Consent Order certifies that he or she is fully authorized to enter into the terms and conditions of this Consent Order and to execute and bind legally the Respondents represented by him or her. XV. INTEGRATION/ATTACHMENTS 34 . This Consent Order and the Attachments constitute the final , complete and exclusive agreement and understanding among the Parties with respect to the settlement embodied in this Consent Order. The Parties acknowledge that there are no representations, agreements or understandings relating to the settlement other than those expressly contained in this Consent Order and Attachment 1 . 12 In the clatter of PCB Treatment,Inc. Superfund Site,EPA Docket No. CERCLA-07-2001-0008 XVI . PUBLIC COMMENT 35 . This Consent Order shall be subject to a thirty (30) day public comment period pursuant to Section 122 (i) of CERCLA, 42 U. S .C . § 9622 (i) . in accordance with Section 122 (i) (3) of CERCLA, 42 U. S .C . § 9622 (i) (3) , the EPA may withdraw or modify its consent to this Consent Order if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that this Consent Order is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate . XVII . ATTORNEY GENERAL APPROVAL 36 . Before commencement of the thirty (30) day public comment period, the Attorney General or his designee must approve the settlement embodied in this Consent Order in accordance with Section 122 (g) (4) of CERCLA, 42 U.S .C. § 9622 (g) (4) . XVIII . EFFECTIVE DATE 37 . The effective date of this Consent Order shall be the date upon which EPA issues written notice to Respondents that the public comment period pursuant to Paragraph 35 of this Consent Order has closed, that the Attorney General or his designee has approved the settlement pursuant to Paragraph 36, and that comments received, if any, do not require modification of or the EPA withdrawal from this Consent Order. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have affixed their signatures on the following pages: 13 In the Matter of PCB Treatment,Inc. Superfund Site,EPA Docket No. CERCLA-07-2001-0008 IT IS SO AGREED AND ORDERED. For the U. S . Environmental Protection Agency: Audrey Asher Date Senior Assistant Regional Counsel U.S . Environmental Protection Agency Region VII William Rice Date Acting Regional Administrator U.S . Environmental Protection Agency Region VII 14 50% PREMIUM WITH COST OVERRUN REOPENER In the Matter of PCB Treatment Inc . Sunerfund Site Proceeding Under Section 122 (g) (4) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 , as amended (CERCLA) , 42 U. S . C. § 9622 (a) (4) . TRUCKEE DONNER PUD Truckee, CA For Respondent : Signature Date Print name and title below Name : Title : 100% PREMIUM WITHOUT COST OVERRUN REOPENER In the Matter of PCB Treatment inc . Superfund Site Proceeding Under Section 122 (a) (4) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1920 , as amended (CERCLA) , 42 U. S .C. § 9o'22 (g) (4) • TRUCKEE DONNER PUD Truckee, CA For Respondent : Signature Date Print name and title below Name: Title : ATTACHMENTI PCB TREATMENT, INC. ALLOCATED WEIGHT VOLUMETRIC RANKING TABLE de minimis Parties contributing 0.003% to 0.8% of Total Allocated Weight (Parties Listed Alphabetically) COST, $ Alai, $5 625.30 7,806 0.008% $4 218,98 10075 ABBCE ABB Combustion En meers .... .. $41 6�4 57 HE EM C,M-11 ...... ....... ....... .......... 0.009,v. $4,669,92 $6 226,55 864( ------ 43025 ACADEMY DIE CASTING 10 895.42 : 'i" z� 1 1� 1 1 $8 171 56 ADFL LIGHT b DEP�QARTWNT 16 133 0,016% $8 719 90 $11�626,53 10175 ADM CORN SWEETNERS "o-... ... J7960 ADM.MILLIN 19 136 trolwv. $10214-,39�0- 10225 AGRALIGHT COOPERATIVE ........... 5 2,4 L9 �--AL $6,275.17 --___$9,300,23 10300 ALBANY POWER& LIGHT 06() - $46 58166 $6�2 116,88 10400 ALLIANCE,-CITY OF $6 19fi--L9 1042 $14,209.97 $48,94-6,63 10450 ALLIED TUBE & CONDUIT CO290 58 �$7 441,42 $9 822, 3 $13 096,04 18 172 ,0_ ALLIS CHALMERS CORPORATION 0 556.31 10475 9 IT 6�7 ::- ........... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... Altus Electric Li lit 6266 0.006"/) $3 386 83 $4,515.77 10550 ALTUS CITY OF $321057 $240793 NEW. .......... .... . $15 082.45 UO uo Bel 20,928 0,021% 646 . ........-....... 52009 AMERITECH 8, 0 ii��� Mum AN 6fflft a 0 V x im AN'llnSON MTV 52015 ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES INC. 4 779 0,005% $2 583 03 $3s444.05 .77 $3 354.60 $2 515�9 4655 0,005% 11050 AR CAN UM WATER&LIGHT PLANT 5 5 L4,t8 $4 13- C..... AMMUN w ...... $3 502.44 ING 6480 007% 11150 ARLINGTON LIGHT DEPARTMENT ...... 7,58 7�q09 .---Q._o07% $4�00-IA5 ---- -- 3392 ---- 11225 ASHLAND CHEMICAL COMPANY PCD T, . cIt,ffic r),minimm Parries 0,003%t.0.8 '- 05/31/200I t3 'fl) t 1UANC ALLOCz�TE17 YRCEN'I' COST, $ COST, S NAfi'T 50% multi Mier Lt1U°1a multiplier). 40 035 0 04o% $21,619 03 12950 BUCKEYE RUR AL ELEC1 RIC COOPERATIVE $28 h)20_I iQ2S BIINCE CORT'fII2A' IO1Y G4 773 0 )6S �35U09 78 16 679.70 15396 0.016% $8t32179 $11,095_72_ 13100 BURKE DIVIDE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INCORPORATED �21 $5 350-94 m 7425 ti1 J UT ll 13350 CCAM WA_L_E�LECIRIIC C_OOIIERATIVFLINCORPORA INFLL 1ED 3 701 0 004%° $2z000 28 13425 CANNON-1ytI1SIEGON CtlRI*URAIStlN 10 168 ! 0.01Q%a 9 949 F 69_ $7,.326.26 _ ° $48 0�1 66 $61 032 88 13500 CARDINAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 88 852 0089/0 - Ssd7$._. 00005`, $2 939 24. :: �3=91,$9R iSS?5 CAR'DINt TON LTaVOgNPUBhIC SCIEiOq ' -- — 88 520 0 08I/o $17,8 1! 97 $61 793 L9 31fi25 CARGII L (Ross Cargill Company&Ross �° Industries)_ _m _.. 33,721 00146 — l019 -14,30C.� 40300 GARL BOLANDER&SUN „ $1 y97 92 $2 797 22 .........._.__ .............. 3 32f> 0 003/o , , Ameu �n Western Cor orallon T, 10800 CAI2LISLE PLASTICS , :, 60 620 0 OG7°fi $3G 035 I1 $48 046,91 10575 _ t A)Z SO 11 N PA .�_ .� _. �297 RX��#SSt�CTrti.TkS_ > ._ ._.. � $1 181 86 $2 375,82 - � � 3,297 0 003% .__ ._ , 2 13600 C_ARLTON COLLEGE °- $79t6 49 $10,55 3l 14`647 O.OI3� -$ 7 1370q CAItLf E OYTIYVICIPAT 7 $z7,z93 0350490 $36,390 71 13625 CARMI WATER & LIGHT 4 435 0�004�t _ .. - $2 407 93 __ '3,210 57 b650 GAF hA IQ1� VJ 4INTEfi_AS�iGE Cg141PANX )' G Ttt7tlfrn G�t7nt 8ttV1 6 481 0 007% $3 50J.05 $t=670 73 52011 CARD REGIONAL MEN"CAL IiEAi TH CENTER t2 25 {)013f,2 _ $(i,�31 JI _$`9 212.541 42550 CAIIROI I ELECTRIC COOS x1�C m 5 631 0 006% $31043 39 S4,057 85 50016 C ATAWISSA MUMCIPAL LIGHT T7EPARC1Vt> 111.�..���a� 4'a�kttl'�tk �C �319,53$ � O,S27°� $h�,'i[7J9K $230,279,97 13725 CA.TJ�ttPIt,UAII1[�'f;(1RPQJk2A'X'J�P � ;; TAWtnpEAl $12 )8l03 _. , $1730804 -- 24 017 0 021'/° 52042 CELINA CITY OF_. _ _ -- - _ ° it ES40.11 $2453_-t8 _ - - �1404 0b031u — St,A17 CELOI'EX CUR 'O12A7C ON w� �� w $4,1 300 87 $59 067 82 81 963 0 0830/i - 13950 CENTRAL LINCOLN PEOPLE'S UTILITY DEPARTMENT 44$97 0 045°J� $24 266 64 14090 CTNT A�,T X�1S 1l. CTIRICCOOERATIVE 279 830 0 282°/u $151,218 26 $201 66-1 34 14025 CENTRAL VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE mm _ " 3 420 C 1FTAri1f1P1fOtTNTERNATTUNA7 AIt St.igis lacillt3es m .. W47 478 0 098°! $52 c 81 Q6570,249.42 $2 393 33 $3 191 11 40525 CHANDLER CITY OF F_ 4,028 0 004% 1 ttty 4FCIlas �Pabltc$Jttl[ki�s ' t2 914 _ n,at °1n__ _$02 979 77 $9,3or>,ar - $a'SZ$ CA CITY OF d $2 253 82 $3 005 09 36725 CRELSEA VILLAGE OF dx170 0 t)04% , . _ - 68 195 0 Ob9°!U $36$59.2? $49,145.82 I429ISIERtIT'YANYISCIItlOI IIIS "�fiSCC " 7 '% $21tI36 $3 t 5I 0005 ,25 I CLester Electric De t 4 7 14 14200 CHESTER,VILLAGE OF � N m m T o 00 CfCCV�ONUSA,�Nf. _ 77#S5 0,908/0 _ 99_ $5,fi10f,G PCB Trcatrncm Inc. Dc brinn"m Panics 3 0.003%n,0.8% 05/31/2001 Ypj NAME �77777tkfiCttNAME t1LLC)CA'CEI� YEI2CI.N`C Gt7S'1I, s Ct7S1; $ - j.C.f T_y (S(I°/tnulli Hier lllf°F mult�lietA 50033 DAV _ 0 00 i% 16 26 $2,329,35 INPORIMUNICIPALLIGHTING _ 3231 _. $l7 42450 DFI3ttCIC G1tAINp.00G°!i $3 3S8 94 21,01 t'_99 29 154 — —0.029% $15�757 9a $21,010 5) 17500 DELAWAI2E MUSEUM OF NATURAL IiIS�TORY }I 56 q 03 t° $16�894 01 _ $22, 2j_34 17525 ARI MON IRQSP RI7 GxRIC A$$, IIU 7 992 0 008''h" $4 319 67 $5,759 56 17550 DELTA STAR ELECTRIC 056,64 $6,742.t9 l2'f00 DENTON COUNTY i LECTRIC COOI'RItAI"Tt?L 74856 0 075"/u $40,+59 83 $53,916 t l 14725 DENTON CITY OF Cit of Denton Electric Uttltttes — $8t) 108 27 $106811,03 2940q APkP?IrTNfRTtfigF1'UIIICUTTLTIS t7kan nbnr 1e t.�1PtlUticWtilttes X48Zi1 . �P_i<ts°l gl x7363 $z t9x 17 003' _._.._...T. 3A466 ......._ 0 % .... .$1 _x 50034 DESHLER MUNICIPAL.UTILITIES 3,82G 0 4()4`/u Z()68 03 _ $2,757.37 5Et(135 DI SIII ER, CITY O T_._ _ _3 720 0 00 4% $2,0 M66 17625 DESIGN EI.FCTRIC CONTRACTORS IN�C �llesl nElectric m � 7p7 q�25"x 033 ;4.19 __ _ 17 865-5$ 17650 III;TRQIT I ITES pUBUIG U T7I 11 X 10 6x884 0 007% $3x72I OS $4�)61 _ 39325 DIAL CORP. m I i 428 0 017"1; u_ 48 L775 DIGTAL,AC1I�tl DISC C�tlRI'tlltA LItlN _ 79 344 0.080% $42,885 40 $57,180 51 40650 DIXIE CEMENT COMPANY n _n W4$rJ$ $5i890 55 _ $7,x5 ,07 5t7 DQAtVP ETC4R> PQDUCIS (H'>XbarMi�fina) 9 219 0 009%. $4,982 80 $6,643.73 I7815 L30LIGLAS CORPORATION 179g0j DO1761,AS FT CTRIC COOPERATIVE 1z331 0.g04°lp �$7 341_04 53,11132.3 ` ° $ 119 33 _ $9 9 4 4 I4775 DOVERCI1'YOF m _ t3,18? _ 0014/° 0�14x°/n $79,494 30 $105,9t2,4q 3$ 75 PRI SSER INI$IJSTRTES (Wnttht3l}Lt9n 't4Knh�1V.'.tkf-133'S '.�'`I� $12 )095,97 .. _. $I7,207 96 m 23 878 0 oza`° 18050 DS&O RURAL ELECTRIC _ m _ I8075 DUISt)IS &C�SNCORPORATED 77s6 t o 018°i° $41,923 40 $57,897 86 _ 8% r , 18100 DUNCAN POWER & LIGHT """" —11 "" �f�le�ttXnl�gUI1�1Tt�3riI��X1?4G9 4,07Z s O.Og4%i $2,2t71.18 $2,9:14,91 186 5 I)X11 7C INI)IJSTRII$ i IR7G _ T1t nn :: , Q48 0 009% $4 9!1 27 $6x592 37 13250 EAGLF 131200KINC._ I3 Prody uctsMal.temenWS Steel ----- EAGLEHtf1NWORI{S: . . 79,105 .QQ7 "f° _. 3951311 $4.15 18250 EAST POINT ELECTRIC m 13 561 0 014% $7,3�9.73 $9,7�2 97 k ?5 1ASTRIV? t TRGT7Ii1fCR�fW 1[tCOOVERAT �4,64_q 0297°0 $15I,1�272 1 5212,3r9r, 18300 EAST SHOSHONE WATER DISTRICT ° 13&20.33 $18,1277(1 1329 0 0 ...�... ,. 25 57q q 0 18375 EATL�N �tltLAN 39 825 0 04q% $21 5 5 39 $28,700 53 18475 EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE ,,... .,.,,,. t 4G Q Otb^o �gg 31q 85 $11,197,80 18 �1q , 1SlUWIk`t S7CtTulR1fz dwtn Stulaber� ° b 1 z,o91 z11 IO SK Wellman(0 16,778 0.017/_° 52205 EGBFRT CORPORATN __.—_ RL _ PCB TaatmMt,IM 5 Dl mm mis p.m. a00P,.t°0.8% 05r01n001 TU I LAME —Nitill, ultier lER NAM1 ALA �CATE17 PERCENT COST &� COST', $ ',I�. _ 5(1°l t�iultiylie IbQ"�mpli s 41 t0.004% $1 94U 66 50046 FRIEND�CI7_Y OF_ — -- --.. f hJt6 O(�12°fo � �t40.40 201t10 FUX TOtV t LCTRIC S t"u 11YT ° $1 669 50 $ 225 99 Fulton IIoard of Public Utilu�es 3 089 —0 003/'- ,—, 20675 FUL1'ON7 CITY ON _ k10 4SS T' 0,t11%.. $5� 00 69 2p77S Cx4LXON MIIN fC7JPATr T CGTT&POWHIt 20648 002t% $11�16019 $1488025 20825 GARDNEI2 DENVER MACHINERY 34S O 0 504"/° �:$_436 21 $360,5&L 61. Mum ("tiff otver 20$?$ GARLAND CI7'YOF 19305 0.019% $1043-157 $13,91276 20925 GARRETT MUNICH'AL UTILITY mmmm� tT3,920 O,t 15"fn $¢t,573,94 s $82 09858 �ta:.�(t CENCt►EP : ' ; ,` `: (OS?tt6Ke�t 11I'6�.` �Obt16K t�_ � .'. .. ���T�41"6KStkS%Gh� $3 071 97 5 bl 099 96, Gencable 689 0 006% 20975 GENERAL CABLE_ fS$ 4330 pg o_ 4�#7 097 77 $63�?30 35 21025 CgENCRAL4r1LCIIICC_CtlMJ'ANY. 14482 0.015°i°_ $10436.51 149?50�02�°lu'�. 1q ' ' 12 _$J$864 43 177�2JOQ GENT VALC J T 4 O?x? �aEItV& �t6G1C1C DCftOEtt[� $1 783 75 -�6 378 33 — Villa e of Genoa . 8 R51 0.009% 14950 GENOA CITY OF & 6 I7$ 004�6Q1a3 338.99 —u $4,35199 - Gattlber erFticds ...:;. 21�25 01�7[ S1VICE1tICrt) 444 _ 0.016% _ $8,34748 _ $I I,12297 40825 GIBBON COUNTYEMr m OS �`� ,' 0sP1UiCSSkCKtmm47( 0.(110°la .---_. �1h85 $(>82513 2i25A GT T f)pP S7'EIt�GS MITI Q $16 60l 58 $22�135 44 30 715 Q031% _" - 21275 GLOBE INTERNATIONAL INC. 010 $5 474 02 $7 298 69 t0 128 m 0. °u $5I75 CBOT IIYY IIIiT 4C 4UOI€ S A f1LlfOIII T Y r. �G trV tyC�tdicll�8t 1 t l{t TtlWt1 b 17 749 0.018% �9 593 18 _ $12,790 90 21375 GOODLAND ELECTRIC - $ ¢4 008°l $ 4t2 84 $5 883 79 x].AQO .GOQDX)kAR"T�RG' &RUBiIE.RRCOMIPANX _ $I60528 _ $2 I... 21450 GRAND RAPIDS PUBLIC UTILITIES 36 25� p pS7°ld $3b gp7,96 $40,543.95 2t�00 , C�R�N3f'7C'1a CUriST1�'UC'�JCOI�t (GFanate)(3�1t CrdVe��ngtrteCtang J Y �� 42600 GRAYSON RECC �.. 16056 0.016'% $8,61926 _$11,57101 r 14 9(F V_.0.005°l0 __ ,05 i S $I0 739'01; SQ050 GR�J�N 11IIV�1�,EI°FC,`7C�IC`.�'��' 16 240 0 016% $8 777 69 $1 1703 5 21675 GREENVILLE ELECTRIC, UTILITY SYSTEM (Greenville Municipal Light& Power 212881 39p375 GUESTSERVIEti7Ui�ICB?ALEIOHY &:T'Otllt , 3 �39 tI 00 4% , 8 562 0 0, 009% $4i62/ 76 $6r I70 34 CES INC. ontana Villa e Resort -, . m 49tS S t0. TEA 1T 3 7�T,l ROG 4UMI'AN! : 0004% $2 008 80 $2,678 40 3 717 52246 HAMILTON FOUNDRY AND MACHINE COMPANY INC - - _. _. $5,9Q7,4h 22rS00 10IAOlYC14TCINPrCLCC)Rl 670 0.011°/g5,767 06 — �7,f,8y 4 i 52249 I�ARRIS J.W. COMPANY INC ___ --- -------- PCB T¢eUnent,Inc.D<Wlmiis Panics 7 0.003%w0.8% 05/312001 ALLOCATED PERCENT COS i; $ COS t, $' TT) i NAME O'titERIVAM� 56°i ry,x,1Rt111er1 1fiv/ multjPlinl 122 455 0 123% $66 186 98 _ .�a8�249 "t� 23300 J L STIIE_LY COMPANY _ - S S 0 ppb` $3 056 80 _y �$4,075.73 5Q0 � IACQI1 � I2" �T G IRIC 34x 188 0 034'%n $l8i I78 fi0 $24=638 13_ 23375 92 J_AC_KSON_C_OLJN'tYRECC ,.,.,.,.,,, .--.��•--- _ 'I 5S -.0084% _ „$�(4a99.11 59,999_ 23 FQ4 TACKSON COL? TTY RF!<N m _, — $10 10) 66 $t 3 471 s t 18xG93 0 0l9% _ 23425 JACK ELECTRIC COOFERATIV INCORPORATED 6�5#2 0 d47°l° p 3,557 31 $4 "143 OR 3 T 23 5 .IAAi 'A COUN7C REMC: 118,927 0 120%, $64 280 07 $85 706 75 23550 JASPER MUNICH'AL ELECTRIC UTILITY ;' �k T ���7°� — $Jh 108 5 JAXC{3IJNTICILE C 41734 0042%, _$2255/ 15 23600 IEFFERSON ELECTRIC 12 2 6 0 p12% $6 61O 87 $8,861 1-73625 J 1� RSON ECTR�C ICI lYLt3 lESIiTP CUYt1 CIXtA C1CIN 27 716 0 028°�� $14" - a 4 $49,971 s8 23900 JOA [SON CITY POWER BOARD m �'+ 3 S4 0 014'K �$"1,491 15 �59 �7a '43_ 23+125 J�iLNSC)NCQGINTX) LT$�T`�1C Itii'FRk�TIYtL ' 36050 ...,._0036"/0....._ $19z48I98 . . .._..�. 5=}7};» 23950 JOHNSON COUNTY REMC 19 OG7 $10,3D?.92 $13 74i,23 24t)7Sy uI% Ii()I{AXIG1EiT & i�A1'ERT)EPART'MEN'Tamo Electric Coop) — 391,095 0.394% $2t 1 386 68 $281,8 t8.90 24125 KAMO POWER — $6()K4112.93 5I#96 ) P��tSAS:STAEA[R lx ax9 0 019°_�, $10 20'160 $13z642 81 24225 ICAUFMAN COUNTY ELECTRIC COOP )� 31°fol $?3 614;21 86 013 0 087% $4f�489 99 _ $61,9M 65 41050 KENTUCKY ASSOCIATION OF EI ECTRIC COOPS ^TT $^45S 0 02 fi% $13a759 49 $18 34 4 65 la2$tl �CFXSTt?Z7LNOLTI}4TF+� NUTRIGif1114T�C4^fi4SS1�61) 19020 0019% ._ ... $10,78024 b13,7(1fi98 24400 KINGFIS_CHER MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTML NT 5 934 UOQ6°la $3'lt�16 — 4` 7 4R 2445{J i II :OARS dN'L LT�I TILT{ 023 0 006% $3i 7 52 6 $4=l•10 fig - -x--- 1f> 35ti 77 24525 KNOX COUNTY REMC _ 2�fig7 �q,023°l $1 ,26"1,58b z m _ T — i9 $8 296 2 ..1515 0O2% 2460( KCILISCO I 52134 KROG1aItCOMPANY_.._... '"- 7,513 ;,,,,,�11OQ8 SEt06& I AIAYE'C 1YIUNLCJfiALELEC'TRIC.IyEI}ARTMEN'C 7 416 0 007% �4z(t0A 3 4 RS "144 4G --_ ffi7 699 2R 24650 LAKE COUNTY COVERT 3,?4fi 0,004'Yb $2,fl4 q{' -_ _-- . ... . ; ° $5z229 OS _ $6x972 I i 9675 0010/° .. . 50070 LAKEVIEW VILLAGE OF -- t56 0-Mm2 61 t7°/n .. 519 859k 02G;1I 2915# LAI�CT►b' LA S tC M 16 821 0,0170 59,091 74 $12,122 32 26 24850 LAUGHON &JOHNSON INCORPORATED _,m xT4'�,5Q1`II I �G el + 130�Tk A� U e�[F. 32 03 0033" $1751165 $2.1z351 5i 24950 LENOTR CITY UTILITIES BOARD i,ca"r,w=m,Inc. 9 Dc mmi.�ie P.Mic 0003%W0.8% 05/31/2001 ALLOCA rib rE iC�NT Coss, x Tri NAM> 0 31 RNAM s�bf mWti' li't Snob/ multi trier S79z387 0 583% $313,158 14 $417 54_1 59 _.. 26700 MIDW> ST' ENE_RGY `2970 0009"/0 $1605_?.8 $2140_)H 39&S0 MIDW STMINERAI S 4 521 0 005% $2,,143 43 _ $3,257 90 50080 MTLAN MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT "" — 7 2$0 0_ -,- ; $3y934 96 $5,246(i 513 81' 1�f Q 31�tINi 1fIPA&tI�IGXT�P�S _ T 110 149485 69 $7 3I4 26 26750 MILLE LACS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE S3� 0 I°�°', $ 126,52 �2411b$;{9 5 267' MII LENIUM I'L RUCIII MICAT S INC. 38 048 0 038% $20,561 81 $27{419,74 2S3'S45 Mh1ITILVTLI�_ITP'OAWP I I'C1��UT.GG�II�S OE OT > m illtownElectnc 8976?5 _ 0$ Lf 0172677 4295,6t791 ,1S72?0551" 54 ; 26875 MINNKOT'A POWER COOPERATIVE�INCORPORATED -- �- 1$ 3J4i41 _ _ 2SS24 0b26"fi' 13�79581 26425 MISRAWAI A'MUNICIPAL U'ITLI`CCES 8 595 0 009'%i $4 6 15 59 $fis 191:12 15225 MrrCHELL, CITY OF _ M 6$$ 854 83 $62,37a 3 2575' Mf3 'fl QJ G41RP(1.11iAxQkv, $44 685 46 _ �59,s8o 62 27000 MODESTO IRRIGATION 22.y2g ' TQ023�°; $12; 9279 $16,52372 _ ° 15250 1t0ITCtOITF CICY 0.1� 33 847 0.034% $t8,2')4 54 $24,392 72 z..,,m ...._ -- _ - 27100 MONROE COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERA m IQ 2$ �g�qXp/ y $2('772,97 �-- �z�30_62 $p0$ MCIt?N1 AA�Il� x BG7f 13 221 0,0 13% $7 146.05 _ $9 528 07 161' 85 52158 MOORIIEAD ELECTRIC CO INC _ S ry S O00fi°�d 0 121 39 2 254 1k1OItNGI#AN Srfl7l�T1�C3fRTC C.00IPI TLAC2U �362 0.005% $2,898 30 _ $3,864 40 27150 ri4ORGAN COUNTY RUB C fRIC ASSOCIATION - 029 0,003�1&_-� t 1;637.39 + IvI'pgpl7lp uk62vttinlCt �d LI111t1eST. $'/778 88 $10, j 84 273R0 MOUIIT�#IN I A1C[TX O1' 14 392 ()014% _ Williams Elec[nc Coo -� - - 37975 MOUN rIIAIL WILLIAMS COOPERATIVE '1 $$$ 002q°/a �14,532 911�37 Z S2I01 - MUILTILCMPAl�TY I' 3 R13 0004% _ —$2,061 18 $2748 25 27425 MUNICIPAL_LIGIIT&,POWER ,., r �4 $ p.0'1$"lu $2 ,$98.2'1 $31,864,32 221.O�k MiI1?FI�AI'AI.�`OW)rII��TGk3fT' S (Ha�nders�a 1�tulltelpal S«1�11[�@. __. _ rS15YP,6 $2 247.40 _$2z996 53 4x158 0 004% z _ 27525 M A GEDNEY COMPANY INCORPORATED Q � thlCCtn� SS41 00Sb"fa $ 0,1$i.$7 m40,24249 $107.686 $2 143 8 t � — 52219 NATIONAL FOODS ntted Beef Packers 975 ATi�7�tAxl'�SU� r> S �ki ?A "a Gkisaarta£ y`titidards , �. $17 463 00 b23,284,00 32,309 0 033/° _ 27625 C1C�O I�1fCY ; -- "19 TS2 $ 3.a i..2 NATIONAL STANDARD COMPANY 0.019I t0 35171 66,546350 _ _ 8,7284 NA . 12112 _ _ % _ 27550 NAVARRO COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE----------— PCB TreetmMt,lnc. 1 1 Dc M.wul P.tmc 0.003"'.to 0.89a 05l3U2001 ALLUCe1TEO ptiACENT COST'; $ COST, $ TD N.A � OVER NAME -5o / iri111lt,lieY IDII^l 1Yult1 ,B 1j $8 12 420 ( )13"Vo $6,713 UO _ �910 b7 41275 OAFFF ELECTRIC _ 3S,2S9 p3,f`% $19(!57 51 2S$ 410 1 29125 U3iEl2L MI3NIC�X'A; ITGITI'&POWI,R 1955 515 0 197'% _ $105,677 81 $110,901 10 , . ' i33 07 $4,57742 29225 OHIOE,DISONCOMPANY ,,,,,,, - 0352 0006'Yo � S21G9 OST I7llC?I27tixOR13s f 151L4"�NY' v 2 512 17 $190 (l56 22 263 723 0 2661, $14_ - 29725 PACIFICOIiI'PACIFICPOWERIITAHPOWER PaoiflcPawev&LI luComny�_ 21�8� i O.U21"l9' , , >1'3USI- - IS�14669 -- 2 t75 NAIttiC&s ASS 'M10LY.CO Ei l'OYtAOTV 19 127 0 019'% $10 338 03 $13 4 �784.0 9 127 _ .`_ 24850 PARAMOUNT GROUP INCORPORATED � 99� p030��', 68 _? $21z61425 7-7�771 �+ arts GvnLhlted CJtl�tgos� 14 7 1'Axt(S S x Q — 6 359 0 OOFi , $3 437 18 $tz582 9l IN CORPORATIONO z 52172 PARKERHANNIF m C2 44 p 5}13`f6742,26 98961 1S32S I'AWTTC55Y{A LItr1ECT T)IAT4 C14ILN'1,CC7`Y ON 32 6R1 0.033'%i $171664 22 423i552 29 29975 PEA RIVER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE lij00 ':I 0 103% _ $ 34 S5 455 25 _,.__. qkN PENN7C11T �11(I'Iltllli Ci)MI'rCNX'. _ 3 164 0 003 „ �1,710 36 _ bz zso is 52174 PENTAIR �Mlaml Pa ep Co�Po�atlol _ 2147 0022"a $It6Q6.2p $15 t7 ,)3 ��C}'t11@Oltftl� �CYt�I$?G1k'CP - $4282973 $57,10630 3010p pRR U CI CTLITTI 5 79,241 / 39800 PHILADCI PIIIASITY OF DEPT OF COMMERCE m �)3�3 0 ail ,y4 f Y _ $7 )1 66 $9 6 L5,$1 Al poi xod ne) 14325 P1tLSRijk1X Gp1PANY45 0 009'% $4 Ei18 71 $6i159.29 50I01 PIONEER HOARD OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS — I9 646 - p�12�'fq $1t)G19 JSd 15, .93 30I7S Tt4ONEER C CNCO OKAYED! $5 049 35 $6?32 46 9 342 0 009/ — $17 475 12 $2MT)116 30225 PICNI ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INCORPORATED 2* 31 Q t133g _ —� U254 X A`1' 1 �uL CFJRIC 11$ �''Il«S'" 8 961 0 009'% $4 843 28 _ $6i457 70 50102 PLEASANT HILL MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ; wl 638.31I _ �. SOL COI1)PAN 10 892 0 011% $5z887 39 $1,819 86 30425 POTfSVILLE IIO L AND WARNF CLINIC (Pottsvllle ITo ltat 4 — p $23 47647 LL-5 1. 101,70 Brlaa[wt ktunXuoinx tcFmouanl drly&t»Me3I a � _ _ 437 181 � $9229.31 3D475 chine 12807 OQtl% $3 294 48 12275 PRIME CROUPC. �p p.pQS`/o �8$� ;CkRIT�TCL�TCJlN1f�ADtlltl�i'1CORTES 11 131 0 Ol1% $6�016 39 _ 021,86 50103 PROSPECT MUNICIPAI ELECTRIC '^m` Il(1$ q,0&?/n3i�1 �t $38,379 92 .. .. {1�1'dJYikIIY ,&CC11G « ,: 2 952 0,003/n $1z51 65 .. .... $2,127 54 3075) PUBLIC UTILITIES COMPANY-AITIQN $9.076.54 $L2 U) 05 tllbd P'(��L1tC I7TET,C'�'`t D1tS'1"#L i7ll1O�A1rTtlOANl,"tlT1NT�" 4,336 0.004'% $2 343 71 $3,124 95 26075 PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF MASON (Mason P170#1) _ — 92 89 COUNTY �k7>�3t1 0,018"ln 9,()591.42 �C►i1N'�� u i'CB T'rcetmaLL,lna 13 De mmi.m Pwtin 0003%w 0.8% 05/31/2001 s Nt1M C)TYIE[t 1VAM ALL�CAiD PI+:IiC1 N1 1COST, n It $tier ,IO i O �Itl j 15 962 0.0 t07. L �8�627 18 $I L�50291 39975 SIIk:PIIARD NILES CRANE &HOIS1 CORPS /4 $18y524 97 �� $ 4 6�9!97 32�t70 5I1 I EY IIIACIIINE& Q )YY:CORPORATION —�: �� m t2,957 _ 0.0 13'%,_ $7A003 05 S9.337.40 50016 SIRLEY CITY OF n m n j� �q,01b°°� $87H6 95 $.!172)27 m.. ,-,..;..16 ,_.Z -.-,. ,.n„�...,-m�� Slt# LXta11IlC5 , 325X1�N7f' CITYCIE 27 079 0,027% $14A636 37 _ 619t�15 16 t ._. 32750 SNOIIOM,ISII COUNTY PUD 13 421 0 014% � $7 254 18 _ $9 672 2a 32775 S(�IOMONCORPORAITn1+t ��ShcmnonLletiric� _ 47 310 0.048% $25,570 88 b34t094 50 50117 SOMERSET RURAL ELECTRIC COOP _ �� 825z1.09 32900 S()U`PJ1(hNT12AIM OWI R 4 1 159 0 044% $23 867 81 $3 LA823 71 A..._,_ ..... _: 50118 ,SOUIII CENTRAL,POWER COMPANY _ - 1 ()qlh°f°f _ _ 410i4853 _ 13 798.05 32925 S0I7T}C CRNTRAY PPTI ! 8A263 0 oo8% $4 465 90 $5,954 53 33000 SOUTIIDALE MEDICAL LNG �u SS q,016°li 840C 05 $11,208:M m�r f T.. �_ 53Q2S S4U1'flI�hST�f�td�,�1 CT�k�C.CQ4)T'��tAxlVl� 58 210 $31x162 55 . --- _ $41,950 07 33075 SOUTHEASTERN INDTANA REMC $13.381.9'2 $n11J7'� a 33175 Sn�TIIERN 12+I�itA#�A'TtCSI�AC;RT�I✓CT;tTC CnnPEi+;ATIVII' -IN8,836�ORPOItA'CEri 0.009% $41775 e1 $6,367 4� e 33200 SOUTHERN POWER DISTRICT (Southern Nebraska Rmal Publr Powr m $3�,,AD2 87 $44 537,1E, (WasCatlt)�llnals Pawe��ao�l� � 6 a,8gq 4,0s2,1; 3'�575 snxz.ANDS'f?W�1�C'C?t'!1"lE1TizS.T�VEs _ _ . #,£1C(1R�pf1i�,A` FL1 91 41 —_ 0 092% b4..... 77 $65,826 36. 33325 SPANGI ER CANDY COMPANY 7 4c�Q p�N8°f° ,,,�1,048 34 $5,397.79 33315 SPY ELkCS'RTC CnOP TlATVU INCbRPOI2A'��D 25 172 0 025% $13,605 70 $I8 I d0 9 L 33400 SPl 10 MUNICIPAL IMPROVE AUTHORITY 76� q,pp5af0 — _. $2�576 38 — _ 3 435,17 3540_ 5 �1) CQNII'x1tVX ---- — 4 033 0 004" �2 179 63 ... 42 906 17 22 081 16 $2J aa2,98 52208 STANDARD MACHINE E_qUIPMENT COMPANY 40u&SSA 4104 - 5 209 STANDARI T ItnTYTTC ?S COMPAIIY 21049 0.02 t% — $I t,376 9ll _ 415,169 20 33650 STEARNS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION 3 j (a y Q q40/p $2 t,589 61 928�7$6 1 m_ ?SOTt1DENR171Rr'�t I1CTkt�GCIf1T1�tTfViu LTTGOI�A Rr11� 0 025% $13,681 40 $I8A211 86 25 33700 ST_O_R-SAFE — g�7 p.L)OSy° __ $2,619 82 93 i93.IQ 1Sd75 STTtOMSR 17G CXI OR T�� m . 90 0 008% $4,156 17 $ ,5 t 1 6 . _ 50122 S1'RUGIS MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC PLANT „mm ,hlA O,g43"/0 $2_4 978 5� $3 304,08- 5S4fI. I�2i CT�CT ° $44 Ei09 96 $59t t79 )1 St Charleso 82iS35 0083/° 33850 S7'. CIIARLES ELECTRIC UTILITIES _ 5'6 37 156 62 51 975 0 q $ 33875 ST`"CY ATRY13(1 .OAS'iCTNG C�1.M1!ANY s 162 0 00S% �2 78,9 98 P $3,7_19.99 33950Mo ST. FRANCIS MUNICIPAL WATER& LIGft I m . 0 11"° --'— ___ >_ Ott 00 .�`ks tT'1�4LT2�.Tu �+i"�' Ux PCB T,.te,w,Inc. 'S De mm mie Panics 0.003%t°0.8% 05f3112001 Stt MA7YiC OAT> l2NA11 1 ALL ZATF.© Y'1 ItCLNT CCIS 1, S C0S'T,s � T� � 5(t^h MitltQtlier 1t10"1° nu0if'ilier 36100 UNION UNDERWEAR COMPANY INCORPORATED 103 144 ...IO t°/� $55 719 46 $74,132 h I _4 6125 UNION YARN1VttLLS ( T t3009 t10t3"f, . 703t 11 - ._ $9,3741.86 36150 UNIONVILLE, CITY OF Umonvllle Power&Li ht De t. 19,232 T 0.0I9%n $10,394 79 $13,859 72 �, � m _:_ bts,9zz,5 36225 UNITED RURAL ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP (United REMC) 14,358 0.014% $7,760.27 $10,347.02 _ CORPORATION _ - ` 323t5 UNITEDTECHNOLOGIESAUTQNTItTIV�' � fSl�elletOldl�) mm �5967, 0,036% $�Ld6.99 $25�919.9$ 118788 0 120°/n $61 204.93 $85,606 57 36275 UNITEK ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED 52 44 illtlVl RSAL PASTX N RS S,2cs " P,oa5% .,.__$2z8<<f,48 , _3 ?9S_3i UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA $3 7 610 55 $50 I t?a0 36300 U 69x585 0 070% L325 UNIVLRSIT'!Of INNS YI VA1T1A 29z760 0.030"!° 1- 88204 8 21, 67 36350 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH DAKOTA 29 384 0 030'% m $!5F882 04 354Q4 tT1'$UfU1Z)RLIRALEL$C7$XG� f3Ca62 Q014"fo__. _ $7,3$4,31 $�Rt5<7 19000 US MARINE _ al_ller Co ran6 tw 4 77Q 005% $2�578 18 Lscori Tr $3�43 58 2845w} IISWESTCUMriiONCA7CCUNS'TNCURri15ItAI1ri'' dtth�vesletinleMET6te ltotreCtr; Z14141 11,574�10 $IS,43z.t3 36475 VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE (Valley Co. Electric Coop) 13,950 0,01=1% $7,539.97 $10,053.29 _ INCORPORATED OF GI ASCOW — T 4tIk00 VALLSXC _ _10�125 mm 0,0,11?� _ $5�47z_56 _ $7,296_74: � < 4 645 0 005"/° $2 10 46 $3 347 28 50135 VANCEBURG ELECTRIC PLANT BOARD - 5 06 111 VATttTi bA Y t ON.WALTH R CORt' �(C)A, OWN CngrtimEldn , 10 757 0 011°f° �,5, 814 a0 ,$ 75253. 13 601 0 014% $7i 36575 VERA WATER& POWER $9,802 08 m 7,690 0 Q081n $4,177 96 $, 5a3 95 640 VItM)JGt,JCrV GI7f1t TaKtrl 1' + t'(IW1�R ab650' VtGILANTA(ELE RT COUI' ttATtVRTNCOItrOVkAT BNUa.ch,; M, unlcl al Uutules� 16 038 0.00 116/ 36625 265.3 972 ° $1 I,558 04 $762().4a r' _ 585 0 005% $2 748 43 50137 VINTON MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC UTILITY $3,549 58 m, 0 37(74(1 WAI��kSI3C(IUNTXxtit1�NIC. �� �. ,.n� x165g8`55 41950 WALLINGFORD TOWN OF �Wallmford FlecMc DEvls�on� 10273 0 104% b74 210 81 _ $SS 658 10 155aQ 41rAItAIKOt TA CIT Q ? # 'r ::z N, 8118` 0.003°/u. w 6f34.d2 W $22, 47, ,,23, 19081 0.019m/n $10�31333 $137511 ( 50138 WARREN ELECTRIC COOP INC A41t25 1t #S JItTG.T:QN,Ct V—P.£�Y!'1S1t ffit?,$23.0$ $17,1:(��.II 42 124 0 042% $22�767 75 $30 357,00 552225 WASHINGTON STEEL CORP - - 541di1 .RYA CIIIXn TI 0 ;,. 13ib72 b:01 �d ft6649 �9 420.65 3 t 7 - -0_009"/n _ $4,960 33 _ $6,613 77 37175 WATER VALLEY ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT L7 PCB'rm."Mt,Inc. rx Minimie Putm, 17 OA03%t°0.8% 05/3112001 ATTACHMENT 2 Legal Description of 2100 Wyandotte Street, Kansas City, Missouri Lots 1, 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , and 6 , Block 21, Goodrich Addition, in Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri . Legal Description. of 45 Ewing Street, Kansas City, Kansas Lots 40 , 42 , 46 , 48 , and So on Ewing Street in original town of Kansas City, Kansas, an addition in Kansas City, Wyandotte County, Kansas . ArF UNI � EC TESNVI ENVIRONMENTAL ROraMENTaL ,o ROTEcTIoN AGENCY REGION Vli 901 NORTH 5THSTREET KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101 ENFORCEMENT ACTION MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Request for a Removal Action at PCB Treatment, Inc., Site 45 Ewing Street, Kansas City, Wyandotte County, Kansas FROM: Pauletta R.France-Isetts,RPM-- Missouri/Kansas Remedial Branch THRU: Steve Kovac, Chief Missouri/Kansas Remedial Branch TO: Michael J. Sanderson, Director Superfund Division Site ID#: RJ CERCLIS ID:KSD980963565 I• PURPOSE The purpose of this Enforcement Action Memorandum is to request and document approval for a non-time-critical removal action at part of the PCB Treatment, Inc., site located at 45 Ewing Street,Kansas City, Wyandotte County, Kansas. Potentially responsible parties (PRPs)may perform this removal action. Therefore, no funding for an Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)implementation of this removal action is requested at this time. In the event that PRPs do not perform this removal action pursuant to an Administrative Order on Consent,EPA Region VII plans to issue a Unilateral Administrative Order to compel the PRPs to implement the removal action. No nationally significant issues exist at this site. II. SITE CONDITIONS AND BACKGROUND A. Site Description A Removal Site Evaluation (RSE) study was conducted in accordance with the terms of an Administrative Order on Consent between a group of former PCB Treatment, Inc., (PCB, Inc.) customers and the EPA. The RSE included sample collection and analysis for areas in and around the structure located at 45 Ewing Street. Samples of the following media were collected and analyzed during the RSE: soils (surface and subsurface), groundwater, concrete dust, air, concrete cores, wipe, and sludge. RECYCLE Analytical data for the samples collected indicated polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination at concentrations which represent a threat to human health and the environment. Action levels established after evaluation of risks to human health and the environment were exceeded in both interior and exterior samples. Interior samples indicated that both the walls and the floors are contaminated with PCBs. Soil samples, collected exterior to the structure, indicated PCB concentrations greater than the action levels. Groundwater contamination was detected, but at levels below the action level. The portion of the site addressed by this Action Memorandum consists of a five-story building with a full basement and surrounding soils, see Figure 1. It is located at 45 Ewing Street, Kansas City,Kansas, see Figure 2. The building is a column and flat slab framing system structure with exterior masonry infilled walls and shares a common wall with a two-story building to the southeast: This property is bordered by buildings on the southeast and northwest, Ewing Street on the west and rail lines on the east. Historical uses of the property were generally for storage and light industry. Information from the 1990 U.S. Census indicates a population of about 3,022 within a one-mile radius of the site. The 1990 Census indicates that the population residing in the vicinity of the site are of Caucasian, African-American, and Hispanic origins. There are two schools and day care centers, one hospital, one park, five food manufacturing facilities, and one wastewater treatment plant within a one-mile radius of the site. Thirty-two restaurants and bars are also present within this area. This part of the site is located on a developed piece of property. The tract of land is flat- lying and underlain by alluvial deposits associated with the Kansas River. The Ewing Street property is located in the West Bottoms, an area that is being actively re-developed. Land use of the surrounding area is currently medium to heavy industrial. Releases of materials contaminated with PCBs occurred during operations at the site. These releases were likely the result of spilled, splashed, leaked,or poured PCB-contaminated oil which came to be located in and on the floor, walls, and soils surrounding the building. Information gathered during the RSE indicates that all floors are contaminated with PCBs above health-based levels. PCB,Inc., was authorized by the EPA pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to treat and dispose materials containing PCBs. Historically,PCBs were commonly used as coolants and lubricants in transformers, capacitors, and other electrical equipment. The manufacture of PCBs stopped in the United States in 1977 due to evidence that they accumulate in the environment and cause harmful effects. 2 PCB, Inc., began operations at 45 Ewing Street in Kansas City, Kansas, during September 1984. Operations at the facility included: de-chlorination of PCB-contaminated oils and temporary storage of PCB items. The EPA granted PCB,Inc., a permit authorizing an alternate method of de-chlorinating oils contaminated with PCBs. During September 1984, . PCB,Inc., requested that the permit be transferred to its wholly owned subsidiary, Environmental Resource Management, Inc., (ERMI)which would operate at 45 Ewing Street, Kansas City, Kansas. This request was approved. PCB, Inc., operated at both the 2100 Wyandotte and 45 Ewing Street locations through 1986. During this time period,PCB, Inc., operated under other names which included: PCB,Inc., of Missouri; PCB, Inc., of Kansas; Environmental Resource Management, Inc.; PCB, Inc.; and Envirosure (which acted as a marketing arm for the company). Customers of PCB, Inc., included the federal government,rural electric cooperatives, utility companies, cities, states, and large and small businesses. During its period of operation, approximately 1,500 parties shipped materials contaminated with PCBs to the site, including transformers and capacitors. These items contained PCB concentrations ranging from about 50 parts per million(ppm)to nearly 100 percent PCBs. The total gross weight of materials sent to the site for treatment and disposal was in excess of 25 million pounds. PCB, Inc., operated on all floors of the structure located at 45 Ewing Street. Shipments of PCB items from the 2100 Wyandotte Street facility were received on the first floor. Oil dechlorination was conducted on the first floor. The remaining floors were used for PCB item storage. Annual TSCA inspections were made at the facility. Significant violations were observed during the 1985 TSCA inspection; a Notice of Violation was issued to PCB, Inc. PCB, Inc.,was assessed a fine and required to "clean"close the facility when it ceased business operations. Inspections were much more frequent after 1985. Near the end of operations, inspections were occurring on a weekly basis. PCB,Inc.,requested that its permits be renewed at the end of the three-year period. The EPA refused to renew the permits and PCB,Inc., ceased processing capacitors during late 1986 and ceased de-chlorinating oil during early 1987. This site is not on nor has it been proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List of sites. B. Other Actions to Date PCB Treatment, Inc., was inspected several times by EPA during its period of operation. These inspections identified permit violations and releases of PCB-contaminated oil. The owners took various steps to attempt site clean up after PCB Treatment,Inc., ceased operations. These clean-up attempts were made between 1987 and 1991. 3 Site investigations, as a part of the EPA TSCA efforts, were initiated during 1989 and continued until 1992. The purpose of these investigations was to follow the progress of and evaluate the success of the various clean-up technologies. Analytical data generated as a result- of EPA's investigations indicated that the clean-up technologies used were not effective in removing PCB contamination and may have resulted in PCBs migrating into the concrete matrix. A group of former customers prepared an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) study for the site. This document was submitted to EPA,pursuant to an Administrative Order on Consent, during June 2000. Response technologies to address the PCB-contamination at the site were discussed and evaluated. The EPA prepared an Executive Summary during June 2000 based on the information contained in the RSE and EE/CA. The Executive Summary identified the preferred removal action to include demolition of the structure and excavation of the PCB-contaminated soils. The materials generated by these activities are to be disposed at landfills licensed and authorized to accept the materials or sent to an off-site incinerator if the PCB concentrations require destruction. Previous clean-up attempts at the site,using washing, solvent rinsing, shot-blasting, scouring, etc.,have not been successful and may have exacerbated the problems. Therefore, EPA has determined that the most effective way to remove the contamination and the resultant threat is to demolish the building and excavate the contaminated soils. C. State and Local Authority Roles The Kansas Department of Health and Environment(KDHE) has been an active participant during the site evaluation process. KDHE staff have been kept informed of all site- related activities. The Unified Government of Kansas City, Kansas, and Wyandotte County, Kansas,has been informed of site activities. III. THREATS TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR WELFARE OR THE ENVIRONMENT PCBs do not burn easily and are,therefore, good insulating material. They were used as coolants and lubricants in transformers, capacitors, and other electrical equipment.The manufacture of PCBs stopped in the United States in 1977 because of evidence that they build up in the environment and cause harmful effects to human health. PCBs have been designated hazardous substances pursuant to Section 310(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §1321(b)(2)(A), and have been listed as toxic pollutants pursuant to Section 307(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S. . §1317(a). Products containing PCBs include: capacitors, transformers,regulators, old fluorescent lighting fixtures, electrical appliances containing PCB capacitors, old microscope oil, and hydraulic fluids. People exposed to PCBs in the air for a long time have experienced irritation of the nose and lungs, and skin irritations, such as acne and rashes. PCBs have been found to cause cancer of the liver in rats. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 4 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)has determined that PCBs may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens. The EPA has determined that PCBs are a possible- human carcinogen. As part of the RSE, a table was developed which identified the PCB concentrations which correlate with an unacceptable risk to human health. The table below presents the PCB clean-up levels that are risk based and specific to this site. These clean-up levels are based on a residential/commercial use of the site(based on projected land-use in the area). Sample Type Clean Up Level Source Wipe (surface 1 microgram per hundred square Minimum Detection Limit concentration) centimeter s(ug/100 cm2) (MDL) Air(air concentrations) 0.5 ug/cubic meter(m') MDL Bulk Concrete 1 milligram/kilogram(mg/kg)or Toxic Substance Control Act (concentrations within ppm 40 CFR Part 761.125 concrete) Segregation and disposal 50 mg/kg Toxic Substance Control Act Value for Bulk Concrete 40 CFR Part 761.125 (top one inch) Soil(top 10 inches) 1 mg/kg or ppm Toxic Substance Control Act 40 CFR Part 761.125 (c)(4)(v) Soil(depths greater than 10 mg/kg or ppm Toxic Substance Control Act 10 inches) 40 CFR Part 761.125(c)(4)(v) The Site Characterization Report was completed during August 1999. This report concluded that all floors of the former PCB, Inc.,facility located at 45 Ewing Street are contaminated with PCBs at concentrations above health-based levels. The contamination extends to stairwells, basement, and exterior areas, including soils. PCB concentrations in the building of up to 1,790 ppm have been detected at the site. PCB concentrations of 1,450 ppm have been detected in the soils. Health-based concentrations were exceeded on portions of all floors,with the first floor being the most heavily contaminated. PCBs were detected in groundwater at concentrations below the health-based action level. The action level for PCBs in soils (the point at which EPA requires a response action to protect human health and the environment) at the site is one ppm. A response action is clearly necessary to provide protection of human health and the environment. 5 IV. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITIES Section 104 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Liability and Compensation Act, as amended, (CERCLA) and the regulations promulgated thereunder in the National Contingency Plan (NCP),40 C.F.R. §300.415(b) provide that EPA may conduct a removal action when it determines that a release or threat of release of hazardous substances poses a substantial threat to human health or the environment. Under Section 106 of CERCLA, EPA can order a PRP to perform a removal action when EPA determines that there may be an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment from the release of hazardous substances at a site. PCBs are hazardous substances as defined by CERCLA § 101(14). The NCP at §300.415(b)(2) contains eight criteria or factors to be assessed when considering the need for a removal action. Several of these criteria apply to this removal action and are as follows. A. Specific Criteria Applicable to this Removal Action 1. Actual or potential exposure to nearby human populations,animals, or the food chain from hazardous substances,pollutants, or contaminants Humans could be exposed to the PCBs in the soil at this site. Such exposures would include occupational exposures to the populations working at or visiting the site (such as individuals making deliveries or pickups to the facilities at the site or maintenance personnel). In addition,persons,including children from the nearest residential developments, could trespass on the site during days or hours when the facilities are not in operation and be exposed to contaminants in the surface soil. A principal means of exposure would be from the incidental ingestion of contaminated soil. The highest PCB concentration detected in the soils was 1,450 ppm. However, some exposures might also occur from dermal contact with the contaminated soil, from the inhalation of wind-blown contamination dust, and from the ingestion or dermal contact with contaminated surface water runoff. Another principal means of exposure would be from dermal contact with contaminated building surfaces. The highest PCB concentration detected in the building was 1,790 ppm. However, some exposures might also occur from inhalation of contaminated dust within the building. 6 2. High levels of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants in soils largely at or near the surface that may migrate Soil which is to be addressed by this removal action contains concentrations of PCBs up to 500 ppm, which is well above concentrations that EPA finds acceptable in it TSCA Spill Policy, even for sites in industrial/nonresidential settings (25 ppm). 3. Weather conditions that may cause hazardous substances or pollutants or contaminants to migrate or be released The Ewing Street facility is located in the Kansas River flood plain. Flooding and the rapid flow of water across a site can either pick up and deposit contaminated soil or can deposit sediment on top of the site. Fortunately, no flood-related migration of PCB contamination has been detected. However,future high-water events might act differently and carry contaminated soil onto adjacent properties. 4. The availability of other appropriate federal or state response mechanisms to respond to the release Neither EPA nor KDHE have identified authorities other than the EPA Superfund removal program which could be used in an efficient manner to address the PCB contamination. B. Endangerment Determination In summary, as indicated in the discussion of several of the above criteria,the actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Ewing Street facility, including but not limited to PCBs, if not addressed by the implementation of the response action selected in this Action Memorandum,present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment. V. PROPOSED ACTIONS AND ESTIMATED COSTS A. Proposed Actions The EE/CA for the site was approved by EPA during June 2000. This document evaluated different means of addressing the PCB contamination found at the site. (A copy of the EE/CA can be found in the Administrative Record for the site at the Kansas City, Kansas, Main Public Library, 625 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City,Kansas.) 7 Two categories of action, no-action and solvent washing, were determined to be ineffective to reduce contamination concentrations to values which would be protective of human health or the environment. Actual use of these technologies at other sites with PCB contamination has not been effective. Controlled demolition of the building and excavation of the contaminated soils have been selected as the preferred response. PCB-contaminated debris and/or soils are to be disposed in a licensed landfill. It is estimated that 13,500 tons of building debris will be generated. Demolition of the building is to be performed from the roof down. The building will be dismantled in a "surgical'manner to better control fugitive dust emissions. Concrete debris from the building will be segregated,based on contamination concentrations, and shipped to an appropriate licensed landfill for disposal. Some portions of the building may require off-site incineration as a result of the PCB concentrations within the concrete. PCB contamination of the soils surrounding the building is not thought to be more than 12 inches in depth. Approximately 650 tons of soil are estimated to be contaminated at concentrations above the action level at the site. Soils will be composited for shipment to the licensed disposal facility. Excavated portions of the site will be backfilled to surround grade. The detailed work plan for building demolition will contain information regarding the methods to be used to minimize dust emissions and water runoff. Dust control may include misting,some form of partial enclosure, etc. The successful demolition contractor will be responsible for compliance with applicable regulations including,but not limited to, EPA Air Regulations. This structure is currently not occupied. Cargill and Morton-Meyers occupy the structures immediately to the northwest and southeast of the 45 Ewing facility. A portion of the removal action will be to assist these businesses with temporary relocation costs. The following federal regulations were considered as applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements(ARARs)for this removal action. • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) Requirements (CWA 40 CFR 122) • General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and new Sources of Pollution for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) (WPCA 40 CFR 401 and 403) • DOT Rules for Transportation of Hazardous Materials (DOT 49 CFR 107) • Standards for Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste (RCRA 40 CFR 261) 8 • Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (RCRA 40 CFR 264, 265) • RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (RCRA 40 CFR 266) • PCB Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce and Prohibitions (TSCA 40 CFR 761) • Mega Rule (63 FR 35384-35474) The state of Kansas provided a listing of state regulations which may be ARARs. The state of Kansas was timely in identifying ARARs. • Kansas Water Plan (28 CSR 15) Kansas Water Pollution-Control Standards (28 CSR 16) • Ambient Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control (28 CSR 19) • Kansas Solid Waste Management Rules (28 CSR 29) • Kansas Hazardous Waste Management Standards and Regulations (28 CSR 31) -Kansas Standards for PCB Facilities (28 CSR 55-5) • Kansas Wastewater Discharge Control Law (KSA 65.161-171w) B. Estimated Costs This action is anticipated to be taken by the PRPs. No Removal Advice of Allowance monies are anticipated to be necessary. PRP Removal Costs Building Demolition $12,753,000 Building Debris Transportation& Disposal 2,516,000 Soil Excavation, Transportation& Disposal + 596,000 Temporary relocation of adjacent businesses 500,000 Contingency (15%) 2,454,750 Total estimated PRP costs $18,819,750 9 EPA Intramural Costs Intramural Direct Costs $ 137,000 Intramural Indirect Costs 284,000 Total Intramural Costs $ 421,000 Total, Removal Project Ceiling $19,240,750 VI. EXPECTED CHANGE IN THE SITUATION SHOULD ACTION BE DELAYED OR NOT TAKEN Contamination could continue to migrated resulting in increased levels of exposure to the building tenants, neighbors, and others coming into contact with site contaminants. The site is located within a redevelopment area of Kansas City,Kansas. Use of the area may increase due to redevelopment which could increase the number of individuals potentially exposed to site contaminants. VII. OUTSTANDING POLICY ISSUES This is a removal action. No additional response effort is anticipated. Current long-term tenants of the adjacent structures will be provided moving assistance as an"other action"that may be necessary to provide protection of human health,welfare, and the environment. Staff at EPA Headquarters have been informed of and concur with Region VII's interpretation. VHI. ENFORCEMENT PRPs for this site have been identified. The EPA has worked with a Steering Committee representing many of the PRPs and will seek to successfully negotiate an agreement with them to perform the removal action. IX. RECOMMENDATION This decision document represents the selected removal action for part of the PCB Treatment, Inc., site located at 45 Ewing Street, Kansas City Kansas, developed in accordance with CERCLA, as amended, and not inconsistent with the NCP. This decision is based on the Administrative Record for the site. 10 Conditions at the site meet the NCP section 300.415(b)(4) criteria for a non-time-critical removal, and I recommend your approval of the proposed removal action. The total project ceiling is $19,240,750. Of this estimated cost, $18,819,750 is expected to be financed by the PRPs. Agree Disagree Michaelj'.Sanderson, Director Date Superfund Division 11 t a RYn.+8t�7,".y3� �T�t n, se � m 7 h x 5. ( v r . .. a. va . yy !! $yf i t 1 w k��• '� Y Y i •i x . .� m-f. 4'w • .._. a .. ...« i t rlu ICIP) L 0 R T,q. N U O Y t f Q s rs %ty�a¢i�C ,.�� "/ q •v' t ,y, - �..� A ridye ! 4 , rm ,5 'LEVEE 4 t rj ! WI MT42goo— . -IHuiOn itrrk +pi .,- cl, 01 iendR Stn wi ' pN tp I ": �,,`� / ` �'� � Y _ ° \ so�oe SSA R �.. , '� 4 `�•.�. qq SITE 'PART lA :a: Q ® . A I I�� u; ■ �,_ 762 IVA a, V , ;, 8. ® , c g ♦ PumOi � s S t .i � 3 PE'NN A EY i LEGEND KANSAS CITY QUADRANGLE MAP 1975 A---A. LINE OF GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION SITE LOCATION MAP PCB TREATMENT,INC. 2000 0 2000 4000 45 EWING STREET KANSAS CITY, KANSAS SCALE IN FEE T Figure .SEO STgp C� sr e UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VII (WOSE 901 NORTH 5TH STREET KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101 ENFORCEMENT ACTION MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Request for a Removal Action at PCB Treatment, Inc., Site 2100 Wyandotte Street, Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri FROM: Pauletta R. France-Isetts, RPMk � �:7j ?— Missouri/Kansas Remedial Branch a THRU: Steve Kovac, Chief Missouri/Kansas Remedial Branch TO: Michael J. Sanderson, Director Superfund Division Site ID#: RK CERCLIS ID: MOD063670350 I. PURPOSE The purpose of this Enforcement Action Memorandum is to request and document approval for a non-time-critical removal action at part of the PCB Treatment, Inc., site located at 2100 Wyandotte Street,Kansas City, Jackson County,Missouri. Potentially responsible parties (PRPs)may perform this removal action.Therefore,no funding for an Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)implementation of this removal action is requested at this time. In the event that PRPs do not perform this removal action pursuant to an Administrative Order on Consent, EPA Region VII plans to issue a Unilateral Administrative Order to compel the PRPs to implement the removal action: No nationally significant issues exist at this site. H. SITE CONDITIONS AND BACKGROUND A. Site Description i A Removal Site Evaluation(RSE) study was conducted in accordance with the terms of an Administrative Order on Consent between a group of former PCB Treatment, Inc., customers and the EPA. The RSE included sample collection and analysis for areas in and around the structure located at 2100 Wyandotte Street. Samples of the following media were collected and analyzed during the RSE: soils (surface and subsurface), groundwater, concrete dust, air, concrete cores, wipe, and sludge. RECYCLE Analytical data for the samples collected indicated polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination at concentrations which represent a threat to human health and the environment. Action levels established after evaluation of risks to human health and the environment were exceeded in both interior and exterior samples. Interior samples indicated that both the walls- and the floors are contaminated with PCBs. PCB contamination of the concrete floors, occupied by PCB Treatment, Inc. (PCB, Inc.), was present through the entire concrete thickness. Soil samples, collected exterior to the structure, indicated PCB concentrations greater than the action levels. No groundwater contamination was detected. The part of the site addressed by this Action Memorandum consists of a seven-story concrete frame building and surrounding soils, see Figure 1. It is located at 2100 Wyandotte Street, Kansas City, Missouri,see Figure 2. This property is bordered by sidewalks on the north and east sides, a parking lot on the south side, and an alley on the west side. Historical uses of the property were generally for storage and light industry. Information from the 1990 U.S. Census indicates a population of about 6,500 within a one-mile radius of the site. The 1990 Census indicates that the population residing in the vicinity of the site are of Caucasian, African- American, and Hispanic origins. There are eight schools and day care centers, six hospitals, five parks and three food manufacturing facilities within a one-mile radius of the site. One hundred sixteen restaurants, bars, catering facilities, and soup kitchens are also present within this area. This part of the site is located on a developed piece of property. The tract of land is flat- lying and underlain by alluvial deposits associated with the Kansas River. The Wyandotte Street property is located in the Freighthouse District, an area that is being actively re-developed. Land use surrounding the Wyandotte Street property is currently commercial and light-industrial. Union Station and Science City are located in close proximity. Lofts,art museums,restaurants, offices, and parking are expected to be constructed in the immediate area around the Wyandotte Street property. Releases of materials contaminated with PCBs occurred during operations at the site. These releases were likely the result of spilled, splashed, leaked, or poured PCB-contaminated oil which came to be located in and on the floor, walls, and soils surrounding the building. Information gathered during the RSE indicates that portions of all floors, even those not used by PCB, Inc., are contaminated with PCBs above health-based levels. i PCB, Inc., was authorized by the EPA pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)to treat and dispose materials containing PCBs. Historically, PCBs were commonly used as coolants and lubricants in transformers, capacitors, and other electrical equipment. The manufacture of PCBs stopped in the United States in 1977 due to evidence that they accumulate in the environment and cause harmful effects. 2 PCB, Inc., began operations at 2100 Wyandotte Street in Kansas City, Missouri, during 1982. Operations at the facility included: capacitor decommissioning, de-chlorination of PCB- contaminated oils, and temporary storage of PCB-items. In 1983,EPA granted PCB, Inc., a - three-year permit to decommission capacitors pursuant to the TSCA regulations. The capacitor decommissioning activities involved chopping open the capacitor, removing the fluid and internal parts, flushing the container and shipping the oil and internal parts to the SCA incinerator located near Chicago,Illinois. The capacitor decommissioning activities were conducted on the third floor. PCB, Inc., also applied for and received a permit from EPA that approved an alternate method of de-chlorinating oils contaminated with PCBs. This process was conducted at the Wyandotte facility for only a short period of time. During September 1984, PCB, Inc., requested that the permit be transferred to its wholly owned subsidiary, Environmental Resource Management, Inc. (ERNE),which would operate at 45 Ewing Street, Kansas City, Kansas. This request was approved. PCB, Inc., operated at both locations through 1986. During this time period, PCB, Inc., operated under other names which included: PCB,Inc., of Missouri; PCB, Inc., of Kansas; Environmental Resource Management, Inc.; PCB, Inc.; and Envirosure (which acted as a marketing arm for the company). Customers of PCB,Inc., included the federal government,rural electric cooperatives, utility companies, cities, states, and large and small businesses. During its period of operation, approximately 1,500 parties shipped materials contaminated with PCBs to the site, including transformers and capacitors. These items contained PCB concentrations ranging from about 50 parts per million(ppm)to nearly 100 percent PCBs. The total gross weight of materials sent to the site for treatment and disposal was in excess of 25 million pounds. PCB,Inc.,operated on the first,third,sixth, and seventh floors of the structure located at 2100 Wyandotte. Shipments of PCB items from customers were received on the first floor. Capacitors were decommissioned in a room along the north wall of the third floor;the remainder of the third floor was used for storage of PCB items. The sixth and seventh floors were also used for PCB-item storage. Annual TSCA inspections were made at the facility. Significant violations were observed during the 1985 TSCA inspection; a Notice of Violation was issued to PCB,Inc. PCB, Inc.,was assessed a fine and required to"clean"close the facility when it ceased business operations. Inspections were much more frequent after 1985. Near the end of operations, inspections were occurring on a weekly basis. PCB,Inc., requested that its permits be renewed at the end of the three-year period. The EPA refused to renew the permits and PCB, Inc., ceased processing capacitors during late 1986 and ceased de-chlorinating oil during early 1987. This site is not on nor has it been proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List of sites. 3 B. Other Actions to Date PCB Treatment, Inc., was inspected several times by EPA during its period of operation. These inspections identified permit violations and releases of PCB-contaminated oil. An oil spill from a tanker was reported during 1983. The EPA emergency response personnel responded to and cleaned up the spill. The owners took various steps to attempt site clean up after PCB Treatment, Inc., ceased operations. These clean-up attempts were made between 1987 and 1991. Site investigations, as a part of the EPA TSCA efforts, were initiated during 1989 and continued until 1992. The purpose of these investigations was to follow the progress of and evaluate the success of the various clean-up technologies. Analytical data generated as a result of EPA's investigations indicated that the clean-up technologies used were not effective in removing PCB contamination and may have resulted in PCBs migrating into the concrete matrix. A group of former customers prepared an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EElCA) study for the site. This document was submitted to EPA, pursuant to an Administrative Order on Consent during June 2000. Response technologies to address the PCB-contamination at the site were discussed and evaluated. The EPA prepared an Executive Summary during June 2000,based on the information contained in the RSE and EE/CA. The Executive Summary identified the preferred removal action to include demolition of the structure and excavation of the PCB-contaminated soils. The materials generated by these activities are to be disposed at landfills licensed and authorized to accept the materials or sent to an off-site incinerator if the PCB concentrations require destruction. Previous clean-up attempts at the site,using washing, solvent rinsing,shot-blasting, scouring, etc.,have not been successful and may have exacerbated the problems. Therefore, EPA has determined that the most effective way to remove the contamination and the resultant threat is to demolish the building and excavate the contaminated soils. C. State and Local Authority Roles The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)has been an active participant during the site evaluation process. MDNR staff have been kept informed of all site-related activities. The city of Kansas City, Missouri, has communicated its concern that the site be cleaned up so that planned re-development of the area not be delayed. 4 III. THREATS TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR WELFARE OR THE ENVIRONMENT PCBs do not burn easily and are, therefore, good insulating material. They were used as coolants and lubricants in transformers, capacitors, and other electrical equipment. The manufacture of PCBs stopped in the United States in 1977 because of evidence that they build up in the environment and cause harmful effects to human health. PCBs have been designated hazardous substances pursuant to Section 310(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §132 1(b)(2)(A), and have been listed as toxic pollutants pursuant to Section 307(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §1317(a). Products containing PCBs include: capacitors, transformers,regulators, old fluorescent lighting fixtures, electrical appliances containing PCB capacitors, old microscope oil, and hydraulic fluids. People exposed to PCBs in the air for a long time have experienced irritation of the nose and lungs and skin irritations, such as acne and rashes. PCBs have been found to cause cancer of the liver in rats. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)has determined that PCBs may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens. The EPA has determined that PCBs are a possible human carcinogen. As part of the RSE, a table was developed which identified the PCB concentrations which correlate with an unacceptable risk to human health. The table below presents the PCB clean-up levels that are risk based and specific to this site. These clean-up levels are based on a residential/commercial use of the site(based on projected land use in the area). Sample Type Clean Up Level Source Wipe(surface 1 microgram per hundred square Minimum Detection Limit concentration) centimeter s(ug/100 cm') (MDL) Air(air concentrations) 0.5 ug/cubic meter(nO MDL Bulk Concrete 1 milligram/kilogram(mg/kg)or Toxic Substance Control Act (concentrations within ppm 40 CFR Part 761.125 concrete) Segregation and disposal 50 mg/kg Toxic Substance Control Act Value for Bulk Concrete 40 CFR Part 761.125 (top one inch) Soil (top 10 inches) 1 mg/kg or ppm Toxic Substance Control Act 40 CFR Part 761.125 (c)(4)(v) Soil (depths greater than 10 mg/kg or ppm T40 oxic Substance Control Act 10 inches) CFR Part 761.125(c)(4)(v) 5 The Site Characterization Report was completed during August 1999. This report concluded that all floors of the former PCB, Inc., facility located at 2100 Wyandotte Street are - contaminated with PCBs at concentrations above health-based levels. The contamination extends to stairwells, basement, and exterior areas, including soils. PCB concentrations in the building of up to 23,800 ppm have been detected at the site. PCB concentrations of 500 ppm have been detected in the soils. Health-based concentrations were exceeded on portions of all floors, with the third floor being the most heavily contaminated. No PCBs were detected in groundwater. The action level for PCBs (the point at which EPA requires a response action to protect human health and the environment) at the site is one ppm. A response action is clearly necessary to provide protection of human health and the environment. IV. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITIES Section 104 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Liability and Compensation Act, as amended, (CERCLA) and the regulations promulgated thereunder in the National Contingency Plan (NCP),40 C.F.R. §300.415(b)provide that EPA may conduct a removal action when it determines that a release or threat of release of hazardous substances poses a substantial threat to human health or the environment. Under Section 106 of CERCLA, EPA can order a PRP to perform a removal action when EPA determines that there may be an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment from the release of hazardous substances at a site. PCBs are hazardous substances as defined by CERCLA § 101(14). The NCP at §300.415(b)(2) contains eight criteria or factors to be assessed when considering the need for a removal action. Several of these criteria apply to this removal action and are as follows. A. Specific Criteria Applicable to this Removal Action 1. Actual or potential exposure to.nearby human populations,animals, or the food chain from hazardous substances,pollutants or contaminants Humans could be exposed to the PCBs in the soil at this site. Such exposures would include occupational exposures to the populations working at or visiting the site (such as individuals making deliveries or pickups to the facilities, or maintenance personnel). In addition,persons, including children from the nearest residential developments, could trespass on the site during days or hours when the facilities are not in operation and be exposed to contaminants in the surface soil. 6 A principal means of exposure would be from the incidental ingestion of contaminated soil. The highest PCB concentration detected in the soils was 500 ppm. However, some exposures might also occur from dermal contact with the contaminated soil, from the inhalation of wind-blown contamination dust, and from the ingestion or dermal contact with contaminated surface water runoff. Another principal means of exposure would be from dermal contact with contaminated building surfaces. The highest PCB concentration detected in the building was 23,800 ppm. However, some exposures might also occur from inhalation of contaminated dust within the building. 2. High levels of hazardous substances,pollutants, or contaminants in soils largely at or near the surface that may migrate Soil which is to be addressed by this removal action contains concentrations of PCBs up to 500 ppm,which is well above concentrations that EPA finds acceptable in it TSCA Spill Policy,:even for sites in industrial/nonresidential settings (25 ppm). 3. Weather conditions that may cause hazardous substances or pollutants or contaminants to migrate or be released The Wyandotte facility is located in the abandoned lower Turkey Creek Valley, an abandoned Pleistocene ice margin diversion channel. Flooding and the rapid flow of water across a site can either pick up and deposit contaminated soil or can deposit sediment on top of the site. Fortunately,no flood-related migration of PCB contamination has been detected. However, future high-water events might act differently and carry contaminated soil onto adjacent properties. 4. The availability of other appropriate federal or state response mechanisms to respond to the release Neither EPA nor MDNR have identified authorities other than the EPA Superfund removal program which could be used in an efficient manner to address the PCB contamination. B. Endangerment Determination i In summary, as indicated in the discussion of several of the above criteria,the actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Wyandotte facility, including but not limited to PCBs,if not addressed by the implementation of the response action selected in this Action Memorandum,present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment. V. PROPOSED ACTIONS AND ESTIMATED COSTS A. Proposed Actions The EE/CA for the site was approved by EPA during June 2000. This document evaluated different means of addressing the PCB contamination found at the site. (A copy of the EE/CA can be found in the Administrative Record for the site at the Kansas City, Missouri, Main Public Library - Government Documents, 311 E. 12m Street,Kansas City, Missouri.) Two categories of action, no action and solvent washing, were determined to be ineffective to reduce contamination concentrations to values which would be protective of human health or the environment. Actual use of these technologies at other sites with PCB contamination has not been effective. Controlled demolition of the building and excavation of the contaminated soils have been selected as the preferred response. PCB-contaminated debris and/or soils are to be disposed in a licensed landfill. It is estimated that 17,900 tons of building debris will be generated. Demolition of the building is to be performed from the roof down. The building will be dismantled in a"surgical'manner to better control fugitive dust emissions. Concrete debris from the building will be segregated,based on contamination concentrations, and shipped to an appropriate licensed landfill for disposal. Some portions of the building may require off-site incineration as a result of the PCB concentrations within the concrete. PCB contamination of the soils surrounding the building is not thought to be more than 12 inches in depth. Approximately 150 tons of soil are estimated to be contaminated at concentrations above the action level at the site. Soils will be composited for shipment to the licensed disposal facility. Excavated portions of the site will be backfilled to surround grade. The detailed work plan for building demolition will contain information regarding the methods to be used to minimize dust emissions and water runoff. Dust control may include misting, some form of partial enclosure, etc. The successful demolition contractor will be responsible for compliance with applicable regulations including, but not limited to,EPA Air Regulations. This structure is currently occupied by two tenants: Rosse Lithographing and Swift Chemical. Rosse Lithographing has occupied a portion the building since the mid-1970s. Swift Chemical has occupied space at the building since March 1982. A portion of the space occupied by Swift Chemical is currently sub-leased to Midwest Data Accessories. Assisting these tenants with moving costs will be part of the removal action. j 8 The following federal regulations were considered as applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) for this removal action. • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Requirements (CWA 40 CFR 122) • General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and new Sources of Pollution for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) (WPCA 40 CFR 401 and 403) • DOT Rules for Transportation of Hazardous Materials (DOT 49 CFR 107) • Standards for Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste (RCRA 40 CFR 261) • Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (RCRA 40 CFR 264, 265) • RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (RCRA 40 CFR 266) • PCB Manufacturing, Processing,Distribution in Commerce and Prohibitions (TSCA 40 CFR 761) • Mega Rule(63 FR 35384-35474) The state of Missouri provided a listing of state regulations which may be ARARs. The state of he was timely in identifying ARARs. • Missouri Water Quality Standards (10 CSR 20) • Air Quality Standards,Definitions, Sampling, and Reference Methods and Air Pollution Regulations for the Entire State of Missouri (10 CSR 10) • Missouri Solid Waste Rules (10 CSR 80) • Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Law(MoHWML) Sect. 260.380 RSMO) • Missouri Hazardous Waste Rules(MOHWR) (10 CSR 25) 9 B. Estimated Costs This action is anticipated to be taken by the PRPs. No Removal Advice of Allowance monies are anticipated to be necessary. PRP Removal Costs Building Demolition $ 6,559,750 Building Debris Transportation& Disposal 5,487,000 Soil Excavation,Transportation & Disposal 307,375 Moving Expenses for Tenants 1,500,000 Contingency(15%) 2.078,125 Total estimated PRP Costs $15,932,250 EPA Intramural Costs Intramural Direct Costs $ 137,000 Intramural Indirect Costs 284,000 Total Intramural Costs $ 421,000 Total Removal Project Ceiling $16,353,250 VI. EXPECTED CHANGE IN THE SITUATION SHOULD ACTION BE DELAYED OR NOT TAKEN Contamination could continue to migrated resulting in increased levels of exposure to the building tenants,neighbors,and others coming into contact with site contaminants. The site is located within a redevelopment area of Kansas City,Missouri. The EPA has received correspondence from the Office of the Mayor of Kansas City, Missouri, stating that response to the contamination at the site is extremely important to the city's revitalization effort and delays would be detrimental to the redevelopment efforts. Use of the area may increase due to redevelopment and as a result,could increase the number of individuals potentially exposed to site contaminants. VII. OUTSTANDING POLICY ISSUES This is a removal action. No additional response effort is anticipated. Long-term current tenants of the structure will be provided moving assistance as an "other action"that is necessary to provide protection of human health, welfare, and the environment. Staff at EPA Headquarters have been informed of and concur with Region VII's interpretation. 10 VIII. ENFORCEMENT PRPs for this site have been identified. The EPA has worked with a Steering Committee representing many of the PRPs and will seek to successfully negotiate an agreement with them to perform the removal action. IX. RECOMMENDATION This decision document represents the selected removal action for part of the PCB Treatment, Inc., site located at 2100 Wyandotte Street, Kansas City,Missouri, developed in accordance with CERCLA, as amended, and not inconsistent with the NCP. This decision is based on the Administrative Record for the site. Conditions at the site meet the NCP section 300.415(b)(4) criteria for a non-time-critical removal, and I recommend your approval of the proposed removal action. The total project ceiling is $16,353,250. Of this estimated cost, $15,932,250 is expected to be financed by the PRPs. Agree Disagree Micha anderson,Director Date Sup d Division 11 9 N . *SAO a I PCB Treatment, Inc. Site ' �; t ? r Y,,.. . r•,x...a "�.y-J •"�' t• � "msr � x+a r Pam# aA • ..... ' __ ...... � k.y,t �ry t t,45»r. f.S xwuq� R.A •I.0 �J� 5�G 11F' "I 00Wyandotte 'r,q{\ Broadway 6ndge .'� Gaa�^g T+'� s A St` I ' •d'd ""` s�rn j f�. 55 ;i 3 3 qq r 1 4 ��' -.ql_M ;; 0�.,, { uf._ II� �yAr l l y eKeiio�rla� rk_ \i f ,_ +a't• - F ���� } S 1�IRA4XC Jt E H�mlr�ich� � _ p t �fl( y �+-yp t\ ^ � p L p4 1 + YQ 78 sz 1 -) 1� i t\ ��s{ u1lot� njl�.,1,_ iy A t\ ;'lir i io ]s 4k, J .� ��eu A I °� �1 The ,,A S �arad sm 760 a 1 'SITE (ty jL �f � • F ° ital Pumpi a n PQ re{ A Sr ,{ ,f�1. c berlY i� '1 J SY2� 1 ' { 47 Me `\t F {( f0 Union :CametCry Af 7,9�91 ® iso .a qy t i d ". >, i .`}h+ wK t�,� „•, Rn a r _ w id ar 11 !— .L c M mo ni P" • •�I§8 �♦ �t�fv y ��'P { � - i �p�0�,�9��yg-F'� _ f E ggg��� . \�.no ,0 ! T 5,s? 8 �"�-�0 7 '7 � i l�_ �.N I `•i KANSAS CITY QUADRANGLE MAP 1975 SITE LOCATION MAP NoarH PCB TREATMENT,INC. 2100 WYANDOTTE STREET 2000 0 2000 4000 KANSAS CITY,MISSOURI SCALE IN FEET Figure RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY for PCB TREATMENT, INC. SITES Non-Time Critical Removal Action 2100 Wyandotte Street 45 Ewing Street Kansas City,Missouri Kansas City,Kansas Prepared By United States Environmental Protection Agency 901 North 5'h Street Kansas City,Kansas August 2000 August 3, 2000 RESPONSIVENESS SUMIMIARY PCB TREATMENT, INC. SITE 2100 Wyandotte Kansas City,Missouri 45 South Ewing Street Kansas City,Kansas On June 7, 2000,the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), acting under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA),42 USC § 9601 et seq., announced the beginning of a public comment for two documents,both entitled "Executive Summary"which described proposed response actions for the two facilities that comprise the PCB Treatment, Inc. Superfimd site. In each case, demolition of the contaminated structure and excavation of contaminated soil was identified as EPA's preferred alternative. The preferred alternatives for the two facilities were based upon an evaluation and comparison of response alternatives presented in an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis(EE/CA)that was prepared by the PCB Treatment, Inc., Steering Committee(representing a group of potentially responsible parties;or PRPs, for the site). The EE/Cti was approved by the EPA on June 7, 2000. At the time of approval,EPA added an addendum to the EEJCA which included moving expenses for the 2100 Wyandotte Street tenants as a component of the preferred response actions. The public comment period for the Executive Summaries presenting EPA's preferred alternatives for the two facilities commenced on June 8, 2000, and ended July 10,2000. No request for an extension of the comment period was received. During the comment period, written comments concerning EPA's preferred alternatives were received from a total of seventy parties. One extensive set of comments was submitted by a law firm representing three property owners neighboring the Kansas City, Missouri facility. A second extensive set of comments was submitted by the PCB Treatment, Inc., Steering Committee. Sixty-two comment letters were received from a tenant at the 2100 Wyandotte Street facility and its employees. Several PRPs also submitted written comments. All comments received are summarized and addressed in this Responsiveness Summary. An availability session was conducted by EPA on June 20, 2000 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Kansas City, Missouri. This availability session provided the public and any other interested parties an opportunity to informally meet with members of the project Response: The CERCLA statute requires that implementation response action must be protective of human health and the environment. Prior to implementation of the response action, EPA must assure that plans and procedures are in place that will protect the health and welfare of nearby businesses and building occupants. A Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan, or - equivalent, will be prepared prior to implementation of the response action that describes the measures that will be taken to assure that implementation of the remedy does not result in a release of contamination to either surrounding air or nearby soils. This plan will include monitoring, as required, to confirm that a release of contamination does not occur. Details of the plans can not be described at this time. However, nearby businesses, building owners and occupants, and other interested parties will be provided an opportunity to review and comment on the plans before they are finalized The commenter asked how neighbors will be notified of the results of air and soil testing. Response: The EPA will develop a communication strategy to assure that local businesses, building owners and occupants, and other interested parties are kept informed of monitoring data collected before, during, and after implementation of the response action. The commenter asked whether the proposed response action includes an assessment of risks to occupants of neighboring buildings that might result from excavation and demolition activities. Response: The EPA has considerable experience with the demolition of contaminated structures. On the basis of this experience,EPA believes that safety measures that will be taken during implementation to control the release of contaminants will reduce risks to occupants of;-- neighboring buildings to negligible or non-existent levels. These safety measures could include both dust suppression(e.g. water misting) and containment(e.g.plasticizing). Response actions implemented under CERCLA authority must remain protective of human health and the environment. The commenter asked if the proposed response action includes cleaning neighboring properties after implementation of the response action. Response. The QAJQC Plan, or equivalent, developed for this 'response action will include measures to assure that neighboring properties do not become contaminated as a result of implementation. Furthermore,the"site"that will be cleaned up is defined by the area of contamination,not by any particular property boundary. CERCLA authority extends to all materials that are now contaminated, or become contaminated, as a result of the cleanup. The response action will not be considered complete until all contaminated materials have been removed from the site or reduced to levels that are protective of human health and the environment. 3 unrestricted future uses. Response: The site will be cleaned up to a level that will not require any restrictions on future use. Cleanup levels for PCBs are established by the so-called"Mega-rule"which sets forth requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The commenter asked who would verify that the cleanup has achieved protective levels and how that would be documented Response: Implementation of the cleanup will be performed either by EPA(or EPA contractors) or by PRPs (or their contractors)operating under EPA oversight. Confirmation sampling will be performed following removal of contaminated materials to verify that health-based levels have been achieved All sampling activities will be in accordance with a QA/QC plan reviewed and approved by EPA. The actual confirmation sampling will be performed either by EPA or by PRPs operating under EPA oversight. In the latter case, EPA may elect to perform sampling in addition to that performed by the PRP to provide added assurance that health-based cleanup goals are achieved All sampling results are reviewed to verify that they meet requirements in the QA/QC plan and when approved become part of the administrative record for the site. All documents within the administrative record are available to the public. The commenter asked what mechanisms EPA would use to assure that the cleanup proceeds in a timely manner if the response is implemented by the group of PRPs. The commenter,stated that an administrative order with the PRPs for the cleanup should contain strict time frames and monetary penalty provisions for failure to complete the response action in a timely manner. If agreement can be reached between EPA and the PRPs for implementation of the response action by the PRPs, it is envisioned that the agreement would be embodied in an Administrative Order on Consent(AOC). This AOC would contain milestones and scheduling requirements with penalties for failure to implement the cleanup in a timely manner. Details of these requirements and penalties will be negotiated into the AOC. EPA agrees that implementation of the response action must proceed in a timely manner to minimize adverse impact to neighboring businesses, and building owners and occupants. The commenter asked if the EPA would have immediate access to funds necessary to complete the response action if the PRPs default on their obligations or fail to complete all required actions. The commenter encouraged EPA to assure that it has the legal authority to complete the cleanup if the PRPs fail to complete the response action. Response: EPA is reliant upon appropriation of funds by Congress to implement its response activities. EPA has many Superfund cleanup actions that compete each year for a limited 5 transportation plan, or equivalent, that is developed during subsequent stages of this project and made available for public review and comment. The commenter asked if public streets would be closed for significant periods of time during the demolition and excavation activities, and how site neighbors would be advised of street closings and other traffic concerns. Response: Although it is likely that closing of certain public streets will be required for implementation of the response actions at both the Wyandotte Street and Ewing Street facilities, the periods and duration of such closures will not be known until later in the planning and design phases of the project. Costs associated with administering the street closings are included in the EE/CA cost estimates for both facilities, and have been included in the action memorandum budgets. The commenter asked how much noise will be created from demolition and excavation activities and if EPA plans to control noise levels. Response: The EPA does not anticipate that excessive noise will be created by demolition and excavation activities. In projects of this type,the most noticeable sound is often the backup warning signals which OSHA requires on construction vehicles. One important factor to consider will be the scheduling of site operations. During week days,noise may be less noticeable, but could affect more individuals and businesses. During less busy periods, for example nights and weekends,noise from site activities may be more noticeable,but affect fewer individuals and businesses. The scheduling of site activities will be assessed during subsequent stages of the project. Efforts will be made to minimi disruption to the local communities surrounding the facilities. The commenter asked what public facilities(restrooms, telephones, etc.)would be available to response workers. Response: The contractor performing the response activities will be required to provide public facilities of this type for its workers. The commenter asked where response workers will be allowed to park and how EPA will assure that worker parking does not interfere with site neighbors' parking arrangements. Response: The EPA recognizes that parking in the area of the Wyandotte Street facility is already limited. The parking situation is somewhat less critical at the South Ewing facility. Worker parking will be considered during subsequent planning and design stages of the project. 7 occupant to return. In the case of the tenants at 2100 Wyandotte Street, the building will be demolished and it will not be possible for them to return following completion of the response action. The statute provides no definition of "permanent relocation". However, in practice,permanent relocations are generally remedial actions that are provided when EPA makes a determination that it is cost effective to permanently displace an occupant from a contaminated site rather that attempt to remediate the site to enable the return of the occupant. In such cases, EPA generally provides benefits to the displaced occupant consistent with the Uniform Relocation Act. In the case of the tenants at 2100 Wyandotte Street, a permanent relocation is not being provided by EPA. The EPA has not made a determination that it is cost effective to permanently displace the building tenants. Services provided to the tenants will be limited to only those directly associated with moving furniture, equipment, supplies, records, and other contents of the leased space at the 2100 Wyandotte Street facility to another location to be determined by EPA. EPA is not providing a permanent relocation to the building tenants. EPA has very broad removal authority to act in response to a release, or threatened release of a hazardous substance into the environment. CERCLA Section 104(aXlXA) definition of removal includes: "...taking of such other actions as may be necessary to prevent,minimise; or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare or to the environment." EPA may,whenever any hazardous substance is released or there is substantial threat of such a release into the environment,act, consistent with the NCP,to remove or arrange for the removal of such hazardous'substance,or take any other response measure consistent with the NCP which EPA deems necessary to protect the public health,welfare, or the environment. The EPA recognizes that the tenants must be moved in order to implement the building demolition. The move of the tenants is necessary to protect their health and the health of their employees. Therefore, EPA has determined that the tenant move is within the scope of the selected response action. EPA distinguishes the tenant move from both a temporary relocation and a permanent relocation, and has addressed the need to move business tenants during a removal action in Policy developed for remedial actions involving permanent relocations. Footnote 1 in the June 30, 1999 "Interim Policy on the Use of Permanent Relocations as Part of Superfund Remedial Actions" (OSWER 9355.0-71P)discusses the distinction between the move of business tenants as a component of a removal action and permanent relocation performed as a remedial action: "As stated in the Preamble to the 1985 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan(NCP), "[t]here are certain situations where EPA's removal authority does not extend, e.g.,permanent relocation cannot be performed as part of a removal response." 50 Fed. Reg. 37625 (September 16, 1985). There may, 9 the structure can proceed. This and other actions such as disconnecting utilities must be performed prior to beginning demolition. There is clearly a factual basis for moving the tenants from the building prior to demolition. EPA is provided broad authority under CERCLA to take actions necessary for the protection of human health,welfare, and the environment. Response actions are usually made up of a number of measures that together accomplish this protection. Each specific action taken during the implementation of an overall response action need not be justified on the basis that it, in and of itself, is necessary to achieve protectiveness, but rather,that it is a necessary part of an overall response action undertaken to protect human health,welfare, or the environment For example, providing alternate parking arrangements for site workers is not, in and of itself, necessary to protect human health, welfare and the environment,but it is a component of the response action that must be undertaken in order for the response action to be implemented. Similarly,moving tenants from a building before the building is demolished, is not, in and of itself,necessary to provide protection from site contaminants,but it is a logistical consideration that must be addressed before the response action can proceed EPA has determined that demolition of the contaminated structure at 2100 Wyandotte is necessary to prevent,minimi�p,or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare or to the environment,which may otherwise result from a release or threat of release. Since the move of tenants from a building prior to demolition is not specifically identified as an example of an action that can be taken under CERCLA removal authority,this is clearly an"other action"that is contemplated by the statute.-The move of the tenant is therefore an other action that is necessary to prevent, minimize,or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare or to the environment,which may otherwise result from a release or threat of release. EPA believes that there is clearly a factual and legal basis for including the tenant move as a component of the selected response action. EPA believes that the tenant move is required in order to proceed with implementation of the response action which will prevent,minimize, or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare or to the environment The commenter states that there is no equitable basis for the PRP to pay for costs associated with the move of Rosse Lithography since that tenant has been aware of the contamination for many years,knowing that the building would probably have to be demolished, and has made an affirmative decision to extend its lease, making no plans for the inevitable need to relocate. Response. EPA disagrees that there existed an inevitable need to relocate. Until EPA's decision to demolish the building, the possibility existed that the tenant would be able to remain in its space. In fact, several physical and chemical treatment technologies have been tested to determine their effectiveness at rendering the building non-hazardous to enable continued use. It is EPA's current decision to demolish the structure that has ended the uncertainty associated 11 As a general policy, when implementing permanent relocations under the Uniform Relocation Act, EPA does not use the expiration of a lease for a displaced party to deny benefits that would otherwise be afforded. If the lease is in place at the time that the relocation decision is made, then full benefits under the Uniform Relocation Act are available,regardless of a subsequent expiration of the lease. Since relevant policies for tenant moves have been developed under the Uniform Relocation Act, these policies will be considered during the tenant move at the PCB Treatment Inc. site. The commenter states that there is there is no equitable basis for the PRPs to pay the costs associated with the move of Rosse Lithography since they can readily afford the costs associated with moving their facility. Response: The EPA does not consider the financial status of those impacted by Superfund sites in determining the scope of the remedy needed to protect human health,welfare, and the environment. The tenant Rosse Lithography is not a PRP at this time,therefore EPA would not look to them to share the cost of implementing the selected response action. The commenter states that there is no evidence that EPA has taken the appropriate measures to evaluate the Rosse Lithography moving cost estimate and determined that only necessary response.costs are included. The commenter notes that the site PRPs had no involvement in the preparation of the cost estimate for the Rosse Lithography move, and did not have an opportunity to review the Rosse Lithography move cost estimate until receiving the EPA's comments on the draft EE/CA. . Response: EPA has further evaluated the cost estimate provided by Rosse.Lithography for moving the business to a new location. The cost estimate for the tenant move that appears in the Action Memorandum reflects that further evaluation. Costs associated with certain activities have been eliminated or modified The EPA believes that the Action Memorandum cost estimate is adequate for decision-making purposes. EPA acknowledges that the PRPs were not involved in the development of cost estimates for the tenant move. EPA also acknowledges that the PRPs were not involved in the re-evaluation and refinement of the cost estimate for the tenant move. There is no requirement that the PRPs participate in the preparation of cost estimates that appear in the Action Memorandum. As the commenter points out, the PRPs were provided the preliminary cost estimate for the Rosse Lithography move with comments provided on the draft EE/CA. The PRPs elected not to incorporate the cost estimate for the tenant move, thus requiring EPA to addend this cost estimate to the final EE/CA. The commenter states that the demolition of the Ewing Street building will affect neighboring 13 treatment or extraction has shown some degree of success in removing surficial contamination in the building. Contamination from deep within the structural members that is not removed by the chemical extraction process can"wick"to the surface over time,thereby restoring the health threat that currently exists. Physical means of removing the surface contamination weaken the- structural integrity of the building creating safety risks that preclude reuse of the facility. Demolition completely removes the contamination, thus eliminating the possibility of future exposure to site contaminants. A PRP questioned whether the demolition could be implemented without creating unacceptable short-term risks. The PRP questioned whether the long-term risks associated with no action warrant the demolition of the buildings. Response: EPA believes that short-term risks can be limited through controlled demolition utilizing dust suppression as required. EPA has made a determination that PCB levels at the facility present an unacceptable long term risk to human health,welfare,and the environment. As a matter of policy, and statutory preference,vacating the buildings and maintaining access restrictions in perpetuity is the least favored option of those evaluated by EPA. Reuse and redevelopment of Superfimd sites is a major emphasis of the current program. Not only would the no action alternative thwart reuse of the site,but eventually the buildings would require demolition and disposal,with the resulting debris managed as a hazardous material. EPA believes it is prudent to move forward with demolition at this time,thereby eliminating the potential for future risks and enabling reuse of the site to occur. r, A comment mas submitted by a facility that produces an assortment of animal feeds in bulk and bagged forms,located adjacent to the Ewing Street facility. It notes that its facility was = incorrectly referred to as a grain elevator.in site documents, and trusts that EPA would advise the facility of unacceptable risks. This facility is also concerned about disruptions in operations during implementation of the response action due to interference with rail access or road closings. The facility requests compensation for any business loss suffered as a result of implementation of the response action. The company requests that further evaluation be performed concerning the means of accommodating access to their facility during implementation and physical risks associated with demolition activities. The company requests EPA assistance to dispel public concerns about visiting the facility, working there, or purchasing its products. Response: EPA acknowledges that the grain operation adjacent to the Ewing Street facility is incorrectly characterized as a grain elevator. The EPA does not have information that would indicate an unacceptable level of risk to site workers or site visitors at the adjacent facility. EPA will open a dialogue with the company to assure that risks associated with the contamination and demolition are well understood EPA will work with the company to minimise the disruption to its operation during implementation of the remedy. At this time, compensation for business 15 II the Unified Government that has jurisdiction over the Ewing Street facility advised that water used for dust suppression should be kept out of sanitary and storm drains, collected, and appropriately disposed of. The commenter requests notification when the actual demolition begins. Response: Potentially contaminated water used for dust suppression will be diverted from the municipal sewer system. Water from the site will be collected and managed in accordance with requirements applicable to hazardous substances. The Water Pollution Control Division of the Unified Government will be contacted prior to the start of demolition. A letter was received directing EPA correspondence to a different party. Response: The identified party has been added to the mailing list. 17 F SHEET EPA ent, Inc. Superfund SiteReg on, Kansas , Missouri June 2001 BACKGROUND SUPERFUND INVOLVEMENT The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The PCB, Inc. site was referred to Superfund (EPA)Region 7 continues to oversee during early 1995. Superfund is the federal activities at the PCB Treatment,Inc. (PCB, program that locates, investigates and cleans Inc.) site in the Kansas City metropolitan up hazardous waste sites throughout the area. PCB,Inc.began operations at 2100 country. Superfund cleanup is paid for Wyandotte Street,Kansas City,Missouri in either by parties responsible for 1982. contamination or by the Superfund Trust Fund. A portion of the operation moved to 45 Ewing Street,Kansas City,Kansas in 1984. Under the Superfund law, EPA is able to EPA perrrutted the PCB,Inc. facility to treat require those companies and individuals and dispose of polychlorinated biphenyls responsible for the site contamination to (PCBs) from 1982 until 1986. The permit to perform and pay for the cleanup work at the treat and dispose PCB-contaminated site. Superfund monies are used primarily materials expired in 1986 and was not when those entities responsible for renewed. contamination at Superfund sites cannot be found or cannot perform or pay for the EPA inspected the facility in 1985. The cleanup work. inspection was done under the EPA's Toxic Substances Control Act's (TSCA) spill SITE UPDATE policy. TSCA tracks chemicals that may pose health and environmental hazards. The The EPA notified interested parties of the inspection revealed numerous spills and technology that had been proposed to mishandling of PCB containing materials. address contamination at the PCB, Inc. site. Due to these problems, EPA assessed a A public comment period on the proposed monetary penalty against the facility. As response action began on June 8, 2000 and part of the negotiated settlement,PCB, Inc. concluded on July 10, 2000. During this was to clean the buildings at 2100 time, an availability session was held to Wyandotte and 45 Ewing Streets. allow interested parties to ask questions and Unfortunately the clean up efforts were not get information from EPA. EPA prepared successful. written responses to all commentslconcems raised during the public comment period. would have no liability for the site in the EPA then selected its response actions and future. Those settling de minimis parties published the decisions in an Action electing to pay only the 50%premium have Memorandum on August 3, 2000. The a re-opener clause in the settlement selected response actions are: agreement. Should the response costs exceed$60,000,000, the settled de minimis • the controlled demolition of both party would be required to make an building structures with proper additional payment. disposal of all building debris and items contained in the interior of the EPA has begun negotiations for performance buildings; of the response action with the Steering Committee for the PCB,Inc. site. After • and excavation and disposal of the negotiations are complete, an Administrative contaminated soils surrounding each Order will be signed by the parties agreeing structure. to perform the work and by the EPA. EPA sent settlement offers to a group of de OTHER ISSUES OF INTEREST minimis parties during August 2000. These de minimis parties sent between 0.003% and The area surrounding the former PCB,Inc. 0.002%of the total allocated weight to the facility at 2100 Wyandotte,Kansas City, site. These de minimis parties were offered Missouri is part of the Freight House the opportunity to"cash-out'by signing an District. Re-development of this area is a administrative order and complying with the high priority for the City of Kansas City, payment provisions. Each party electing to Missouri. New restaurants are being settle with EPA agreed to pay its allocated established in close proximity to the site. share of the projected response costs plus a 100%premium. Sixty-nine de minimis EPA has been notified of plans to convert parties settled with EPA. The administrative buildings, located across Wyandotte,into order was issued pursuant to section residential lofts. EPA is working with all 122(g)(4) of the Comprehensive involved parties to get the response action Environmental Response, Compensation and accomplished in a timely manner. Recovery Act of 1980, 1986 (CERCLA or Superfund)and became effective following Renovation of a building located 1800 feet a 30 day public comment period. from the former PCB,Inc. facility on Ewing street has been approved by the Unified EPA sent settlement offers to a second group Government of Wyandotte County,Kansas. of de minimis parties during June 2001. The building is to be used to construct These de minimis parties sent between residential living spaces (lofts). 0.003%and 0.8% of the total allocated weight to the site. These de minimis parties FOR MORE INFORMATION were offered the opportunity to "cash-out' by paying their allocated share of the EPA encourages community members to projected response costs plus a premium of review the Administrative Record File for either 50%or 100%. By paying the 100% the site. The Administrative Record File is premium, the settling de minimis party available for public review at the following locations during normal business hours: Kansas City, Kansas Kansas City, Missouri EPA Region 7 Main Public Library Main Public Library Docket Room 625 Minnesota Avenue Government Documents 901 N. 5`1 Street Kansas City,Kansas 311 E. 12'' Street Kansas City,Kansas Kansas City, Missouri If you have additional questions about this fact sheet or the sites,please contact: Hattie Thomas Pauletta France-Isetts Community Involvement Coordinator Remedial Project Manager EPA Region 7 EPA Region 7 901 N. 5"' Street 901 N. 5d Street Kansas City,Kansas 66101 Kansas City,Kansas 66101 1-913-551-7003 1-913-551-7084 (PCB, Inc.message line) Fax: 913-551-7066 Fax: 913-551-7063 E-mail: thomas.hattie@epa.gov Toll-free 1-800-223-0425 (in Iowa,Kansas,Missouri,Nebraska) #ice r