shyI

I

N(W HAMlSHI(

IN NEW HAMPSHIRE 1-800-922- 2230

Mr Merrill s

June 1 1992

Hohman Director middot ~ ~Waste Management Division

US Environmental Protection Agency JF Kennedy Federal Building Boston Massachusetts 02203-2211

Dear Mr Hohman

It ha~ ccme to my attention that a decild on hH bebulln reached by the EPA to the request by the City of Somersworth and the New Hampshire Congressional Delegation for a four to six month delay in the release of the ROD for the Somersworth Municipal Landfill Superfund Site

According to the attached correspondence the EPA has decided not to allow the proposed additional work as reported in the EPAs May 15 1992 letter Since I have not received an official response to the Delegation request of April 14 1992 I would like to request a review of the matter and an explanation of the outcome

Thank you for your assistance with this matter

With warm regards

u~ RCS dmg

ncloaur

- I

NEW HAMPSHIRE

I 57 MAIN STREET

TELEPHONE C6031 692middot4262

DOUGLAS R ELLIOTT JR CITY MAHAGl ll

May 20 1991

Merri ll S Hohman Director Waste Management Division United States Environmental Protection Agency John F Kennedy Federal Building Boston MA 02203- 2211

Re Somersworth Sanitary Landfill Superfund Site Somersworth New Hamps hire

Dear Mr Hohman

CITY OF

L -rv pI tbull

MAY~- ~- 1992 ~ ~ Utnmiddot

SOMERSWORTH-shy

- l -l

J shy

middot

03878

I am in rec ipt of your May 15 1992 letter concer ning the Somersworth Landfill (bullLandfill or Site) I have been in contact with the oth r Trustees of the Somersworth Landfill Trust

nd I am writing to express how very distressed w are with the Ag ncybull d ci ion not to allow the proposed additional work

We appr ci te your having our proposal reviewed by R s K rr Environm nt l Res arch L boratory (Kerr) While we have not r c iv d K rr comm nts dir ctly we agree with much of what you ttribut to K rr in your 1 tter Indeed we believe that many

of th lr inding upport our position that an innov tive approach 1 ppropriate for thi Site

Sp cifically K rr b chani bull ar at work t

acknowl dg that the xt occurring i unknown Th blod gradation 1 at ork agr o excell n

liev that contamin nt att nuation th Site including biod grad tion w

nt to which tho proc da a to d t howev r ugg t middot

at h Landfill and with this K rr o tudy the Sit fur hr

bl i nfor ion will

We hear frequently about EPAs commitment to innovative technology in the context of Superfund cleanups The EPA however when presented with a site that all agree could potentially benefit from the application of such a technology appears anxious to find reasons not to pursue it or deviate from technologies which are tested but which have had only mixed success We do not understand this approach and are frustrated by it Much of the Agencys reasoning appears inconsistent For example the reasons why a particular process is deemed innovative (eg new not proven incomplete datA) are the same reasons the Agency is assert ing to reject our proposal If we are to answer unknowns and increase the scientific information on a particular technology the Agency must look for sites that present the right cond itions The Somersworth Landfill is such a Site The use of new technology will never advance if those technologies mu t meet the threshold of certainty and completen ss suggested in your letter

Our position is consistent with the February 21 1989 OSWER Directive cone rning Advancing the Use of Treatment Technologies for Sup rfund R medies In this Direc tive the EPA acknowledges th tatutory mandate to develop remedial alternatives using new technologi Thi is to b done even if the technologies

(H] v not y t b en proven i n practice in order to promote the d velopment and use of n w treatment methods for h z rdou ub t nc s

and innov t chnologi s fa ll into this category and th CP r quir dev lopm nt of one or more innovativ echnologi for furth r considera tion if th

chnology off r pot ntial for better treatment or low r co ta for 1 ll r p rfor nc than d mon trated treatm nt t chnologl a

OS R Dir c iv o 9355026

duration of ion

ibillty Study 1gtc mon h b prop dy

h

In my April 13 1992 letter to Ms Belaga I stated that the Landfill presents no present risk to anyone Dr OBrien Director of the Waste Management Division New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services agrees with our assessment In his May 14 1992 letter to Mr Dennis Huebner Chief NHR~I Waste Management Branch US EPA Region I Dr OBrien states

[T)he data thus far suggests that the public is not directly at risk in that (a) based on limited chemical data the leading edge of the contaminant plume appears not to be moving (b) there are no present receptors other than the swamp area and (c) area residents are served by municipal water supply Ther are contaminants in the ground water which are above permitt d drinking water maximum contaminant levels and as such do pose a long-term potential risk which could be viewed as an argument for the immediate application of stablished methods

Or OBrien then poses the qu stion of how long can such a threat be permitted to exist He sugg sts that new technology will almost alway lose in such an analysis His question howev r is bett r vi w d in the cont xt of our request fQr a short additional study This Site ha b non the National Priorities Li t for ten with no evident adv rse affects There has b n no ugg that a short xt nsion will increase any risk posed by th

You th ri k dr iving thi Sit is the potential for th public to drink cont in t d ground w t r from th L ndfill t o point in th u ur bull Clty has tak n teps to pr vent thia by xtendlng th munlclp l water supply and ccordlgly thi th or tical futur riak if it xi ts is

r ot

po Ag to Fe

th

h h

middotmiddot- middot-middotmiddot middot-~

I will contact you soon concerning possible meeting dates

71lmiddotpound~~ Dou as R Elliott Ci Manager

Enclosures

cc Julie Belaga USEPA Regional Administrator Region I (wo enclosures)

Settling Parties (wo enclosures) New Hampshire Congressional Delegation (wo enclosures) Robert W Varney Commissioner NHDES (wo enclosures Philip J OBrien PhD Director

Waste Management Division NHDES (wo enclosures Diana King USEPA Project Coordinator (wo enclosures Sila Gonzalez USEPA Assistant Regional Counsel (wo

enclosures) Paul Lincoln NHDES (wo enclosures)

1. barcode 582033
2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 582033

bl i nfor ion will

We hear frequently about EPAs commitment to innovative technology in the context of Superfund cleanups The EPA however when presented with a site that all agree could potentially benefit from the application of such a technology appears anxious to find reasons not to pursue it or deviate from technologies which are tested but which have had only mixed success We do not understand this approach and are frustrated by it Much of the Agencys reasoning appears inconsistent For example the reasons why a particular process is deemed innovative (eg new not proven incomplete datA) are the same reasons the Agency is assert ing to reject our proposal If we are to answer unknowns and increase the scientific information on a particular technology the Agency must look for sites that present the right cond itions The Somersworth Landfill is such a Site The use of new technology will never advance if those technologies mu t meet the threshold of certainty and completen ss suggested in your letter

Our position is consistent with the February 21 1989 OSWER Directive cone rning Advancing the Use of Treatment Technologies for Sup rfund R medies In this Direc tive the EPA acknowledges th tatutory mandate to develop remedial alternatives using new technologi Thi is to b done even if the technologies

(H] v not y t b en proven i n practice in order to promote the d velopment and use of n w treatment methods for h z rdou ub t nc s

and innov t chnologi s fa ll into this category and th CP r quir dev lopm nt of one or more innovativ echnologi for furth r considera tion if th

chnology off r pot ntial for better treatment or low r co ta for 1 ll r p rfor nc than d mon trated treatm nt t chnologl a

OS R Dir c iv o 9355026

duration of ion

ibillty Study 1gtc mon h b prop dy

h

In my April 13 1992 letter to Ms Belaga I stated that the Landfill presents no present risk to anyone Dr OBrien Director of the Waste Management Division New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services agrees with our assessment In his May 14 1992 letter to Mr Dennis Huebner Chief NHR~I Waste Management Branch US EPA Region I Dr OBrien states

[T)he data thus far suggests that the public is not directly at risk in that (a) based on limited chemical data the leading edge of the contaminant plume appears not to be moving (b) there are no present receptors other than the swamp area and (c) area residents are served by municipal water supply Ther are contaminants in the ground water which are above permitt d drinking water maximum contaminant levels and as such do pose a long-term potential risk which could be viewed as an argument for the immediate application of stablished methods

Or OBrien then poses the qu stion of how long can such a threat be permitted to exist He sugg sts that new technology will almost alway lose in such an analysis His question howev r is bett r vi w d in the cont xt of our request fQr a short additional study This Site ha b non the National Priorities Li t for ten with no evident adv rse affects There has b n no ugg that a short xt nsion will increase any risk posed by th

You th ri k dr iving thi Sit is the potential for th public to drink cont in t d ground w t r from th L ndfill t o point in th u ur bull Clty has tak n teps to pr vent thia by xtendlng th munlclp l water supply and ccordlgly thi th or tical futur riak if it xi ts is

r ot

po Ag to Fe

th

h h

middotmiddot- middot-middotmiddot middot-~

I will contact you soon concerning possible meeting dates

71lmiddotpound~~ Dou as R Elliott Ci Manager

Enclosures

cc Julie Belaga USEPA Regional Administrator Region I (wo enclosures)

Settling Parties (wo enclosures) New Hampshire Congressional Delegation (wo enclosures) Robert W Varney Commissioner NHDES (wo enclosures Philip J OBrien PhD Director

Waste Management Division NHDES (wo enclosures Diana King USEPA Project Coordinator (wo enclosures Sila Gonzalez USEPA Assistant Regional Counsel (wo

enclosures) Paul Lincoln NHDES (wo enclosures)

1. barcode 582033
2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 582033

In my April 13 1992 letter to Ms Belaga I stated that the Landfill presents no present risk to anyone Dr OBrien Director of the Waste Management Division New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services agrees with our assessment In his May 14 1992 letter to Mr Dennis Huebner Chief NHR~I Waste Management Branch US EPA Region I Dr OBrien states

[T)he data thus far suggests that the public is not directly at risk in that (a) based on limited chemical data the leading edge of the contaminant plume appears not to be moving (b) there are no present receptors other than the swamp area and (c) area residents are served by municipal water supply Ther are contaminants in the ground water which are above permitt d drinking water maximum contaminant levels and as such do pose a long-term potential risk which could be viewed as an argument for the immediate application of stablished methods

Or OBrien then poses the qu stion of how long can such a threat be permitted to exist He sugg sts that new technology will almost alway lose in such an analysis His question howev r is bett r vi w d in the cont xt of our request fQr a short additional study This Site ha b non the National Priorities Li t for ten with no evident adv rse affects There has b n no ugg that a short xt nsion will increase any risk posed by th

You th ri k dr iving thi Sit is the potential for th public to drink cont in t d ground w t r from th L ndfill t o point in th u ur bull Clty has tak n teps to pr vent thia by xtendlng th munlclp l water supply and ccordlgly thi th or tical futur riak if it xi ts is

r ot

po Ag to Fe

th

h h

middotmiddot- middot-middotmiddot middot-~

I will contact you soon concerning possible meeting dates

71lmiddotpound~~ Dou as R Elliott Ci Manager

Enclosures

cc Julie Belaga USEPA Regional Administrator Region I (wo enclosures)

Settling Parties (wo enclosures) New Hampshire Congressional Delegation (wo enclosures) Robert W Varney Commissioner NHDES (wo enclosures Philip J OBrien PhD Director

Waste Management Division NHDES (wo enclosures Diana King USEPA Project Coordinator (wo enclosures Sila Gonzalez USEPA Assistant Regional Counsel (wo

enclosures) Paul Lincoln NHDES (wo enclosures)

1. barcode 582033
2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 582033

middotmiddot- middot-middotmiddot middot-~

I will contact you soon concerning possible meeting dates

71lmiddotpound~~ Dou as R Elliott Ci Manager

Enclosures

cc Julie Belaga USEPA Regional Administrator Region I (wo enclosures)

Settling Parties (wo enclosures) New Hampshire Congressional Delegation (wo enclosures) Robert W Varney Commissioner NHDES (wo enclosures Philip J OBrien PhD Director

Waste Management Division NHDES (wo enclosures Diana King USEPA Project Coordinator (wo enclosures Sila Gonzalez USEPA Assistant Regional Counsel (wo

enclosures) Paul Lincoln NHDES (wo enclosures)

1. barcode 582033
2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 582033