<-.

^ /B R A N N & I S A A C S O N

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

184 MAIN STREET

P.O. BOX 3070

LEWISTDN, MAINE 04243-3070

(207) 786-3566 LOUIS J. BRANN - 1948

IRVING ISAACSON Telecopier (207) 783-9325

PETER A. ISAACSON - 1980 GEORGE S. ISAACSON ALFRED C. FRAWLEY MARTIN I. EISENSTEIN MARTHA E. GREENE IRVING FRIEDMAN, Of Counsel DAVID W. BERTONI PETER D. LOWE BENJAMIN W. LUND Superfund P.tL.i:.. ; . .DANIEL C. STDCKFORD MAUREEN E. KEEGAN January 27, 1^§^E: S«e!:^^^ LAURA M. O'HANLON

BREAK: h *? FEDERAL EXPRESS OTHER: ^ ^ i V ^ d

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

M a r i l y n K. G o l d b e r g U . S . E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n Agency

SDMS DocID 451438 P .O . Box 221470 Chantilly, VA 22022

RE: Solvents Recovery Service of New England Superfund Site ("SRSNE")/ Your Notice of Failure to Respond to Request for Information to Meyer Pak

Dear Ms. Goldberg:

I am counsel to Millen Industries, Inc. ("Millen"), which has a plant at 585 South Union Street in Lawrence, New Hampshire. We are responding to Mr. Hohman's letter dated January 22, 1993, which was directed to Nazira Wightman, Meyer Pak, 585 South Union Street, Lawrence. I enclose a copy of that letter.

The January 22, 1993 refers to an information request dated 11/03/92 to Meyer Pak. The only correspondence that Millen received from the EPA date 11/03/92 is the attached correspondence.

As you can see, the letter dated 11/03/92 states that "[s]ome of you will receive an Attachment III which contains an Information Request". The letter received by Millen did not contain an Attachment III. Therefore, no response was provided to an information request, since there was none.

In addition, the 11/03/92 letter states that Attachment II contains copies of all documents EPA has linking the company to the site. Unfortunately, no such documents were attached. It appears that those documents were intended to be Appendix II-D. As you can see, Millen received no such Appendix II-D.

My client, of course, will provide pertinent information you request. It clearly did not fail to honor an information request, because it did not receive one. If you need additional

BRANN S. ISAACSON

Page 2

information, please let me know and we will respond immediately. I would also appreciate receiving all the documents EPA has linking Millen or Meyer Pak to this site, so that we can file, if necessary, a response in Appendix II.

Finally, let me bring a matter to your attention. By letter dated July 23, 1992 to Mr. Hohman from me (copy enclosed) I notified Mr. Hohman of the fact that Millen is not a proper party and should not be subject to any liability regarding the SRSNE site. Please contact me if our understanding is incorrect.

Please let me ]cnow if you desire additional information.

Very truly yours,

BRANN & ISAACSON

Martin I. Eisenstein

MIE/klc

Enclosures

B R A N N SL I S A A C S O N ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

184 MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 3070

LEWISTON, MAINE 04243-3070 (207) 786-3566

IRVING ISAACSONGEORGE S. ISAACSONALFRED C. FRAWLEY MAFTTIN I. EISENSTEIN MARTHA E. GREENEDAVID W BEFTTONIPETER 0. LOWE BENJAMIN W. LUND DANIEL C. STOCKFORD

Telecopier (207) 783-9325

J U l V 2 3 , 199 2 " - ^ J •• ­' / -- . «.

' £ r ' X \ ^ ^ T J l * ^ , . . r . P^J^B A. ISAACSON -1980

.™„M^ ccrr^i..,., «./­ IRVING FRIEDMAN, Of Counsel

CERTIFIED MAIL ­ RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Merrill S. Hohman, Director Waste Management Division United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 J.F. Kennedy Federal Building Boston, MA 02203-2211

Re: Solvents Recovery Service of New England in Southington, CT

Dear Mr. Hohman:

Please be advised that we are counsel to Millen Industries, Inc. ("Millen") , which has a plant at 585 South Union Street in Lawrence, Massachusetts. We are responding to your June 12, 1992 letter addressed to Millen employee, Nazira Wightman, c/o Meyer Pak at 585 South Union Street in Lawrence.

We believe your notice, if it is intended to be directed to Millen, is in error. Enclosure B, page 34 of your letter, indicates that one of the potentially responsible parties is "Meyer Pak", because it purportedly had disposed at the Site 660 gallons of solvent. It is our understanding through conversations with your staff that your records indicate that the disposal occurred on 12/17/59 (385 gal.) and 6/16/60 (215 gal.) by Meyer Pak.

Millen did not commence operations at 585 Union Street in Lawrence until 1962. While it did purchase the real estate at 585 South Union Street, it did not purchase assets, liabilities or stock of any company called Meyer Pak.

Very truly yours,

BRANN & ISAACSON

^lar t in I . Eisenst.'yJrir

MIE/dfw

J f ^ N — 2 : 6 - 9 3 T U E 1 2 : 5 1 : F r o m : F C M < ; P a . C 4 l & Z i > 5 e 8 e . e 9 8 6 T S P . G S

/^£% \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

-4 V^f^ \ REGION I

^ * \ « w i « ''•^* •^^'^'^^'^^ FEDERAL BUILDINQ, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203-2211

URflENT LEGAL HATTER — PROMPT REPLY NECESSARY CBRTiriED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

January 22, 1993 Nazira Wightman, Business Manager Meyer Pak 585 South Union Street Lawrence, MA 01843

Re: Solvents Recovery Service of New England Superfund Site (SRSNE), Southington, Connecticut Notice of Failure to Respond to Request for Information

Dear Mr. Wightman:

This letter serves to notify you that the Environmental Protection Agencyi(EPA) has not received a response to the Information Request Issued to you on 11/03/92, The EPA requested this information concerning the SRSNE site under the authority of Section 104(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Section 3007 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Response to EPA's Information Request was due within thirty (30) days of receipt. A response from Meyer Pak was due on 12/06/92.

Failure to comply with the Information Request within the specified time period is a violation of federal law and may result in administrative or civil enforcement action, including penalties under Section 104 of CERCLA and Section 3008 of RCRA of up to $25,000 per day of continued non-compliance. EPA considers non-compliance to have begun on 12/06/92, the deadline for submission of your response.

EPA is currently evaluating the appropriate enforcement options to pursue in accord with the Meyer Pak's non-compliance with the Information Request. In order to mitigate the extent of any enforcement actions that may be forthcoming, you and/or your company are hereby encouraged to comply in full with the Information Request within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this letter. Your response should be sent to;

Marilyn K. Goldberg U.S. Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 221470 Chantilly, VA 22022

PfitNTEp ON P C C Y C L F O P A P E R

j A N - 2 : 6 - " 5 5 T U E 1 2 : 5 ' 5 i F r o m : F C M < P c i i J I fiZ i > 5 G S 6 . S S ' e 6 . V S P . 0 4

If you or your attorney have any legal questions, please call Lloyd Selbst at (617) 565-3685. If you have any general questions, please direct these questions to Marilyn K. Goldberg at (617) 573-9694.

We urge you to give this matter your prompt attention.

Sincerely,

Merrill S. Hohman, Director Waste Management Division U.S. EPA, Region I

cc: Dennis Gagne, Chief CT Superfund Section

Bruce Marshall, Chief Superfund Enforcement Support Section

Michael Nalipinski, EPA Remedial Project Manager Lloyd Selbst, EPA Office of Regional Counsel

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION I

J.F. KENNEDY fEDERAL BUILDING, BOSTON/ MA 02203-2211

.MEMORANDUM

OATE! NOV 3 1992

SUBJJ Transmittal of Information on the Solvents Recovery service of New England (SRSNE) Superfund Site

PROM; Merrill S. Hohman, Director^/,. - U ^ ^ - ^ Waste Management Division ^ i ---- - - •

TO: SRSNE Potentially Responsible Parties

Attached for your Information are several sets of documents•' related to your status"as a potentially responsible party (PRP) for the Solvents Recovery Service of New England (SRSNE) Superfund site in Southington, Connecticut.

Attachment I contains questions and answers from the informational meeting that was held for SRSNE PRPs on July 16, 1992, at the Hynes Convention Center in Boston.

Attachment II contains copies of all of the documents EPA has linking you to the SRSNE site and accompanying instructions and forms you may use in reviewing and, if you so desire, disputing any of this information. Your review of the transactional documents is entirely optional. If EPA does not hear from you within the specified timeframe, the Agency will assume that its information regarding your transactions is correct.

Some of you will also receive an Attachment III which contains an Information Request, completion of which is mandatory under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. Section 9604(e), and Section 3007 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. Section 6927.

Since General Notice letters of potential liability were sent out in June, 1992, EPA has obtained additional records from the State of Connecticut which identify additional parties who brought waste to SRSNE for treatment or disposal, and also identify some additional transactions for parties who were already noticed. The documents and transaction summary sheet you are receiving in Attachment II reflect this new information. A revised volumetric ranking that is also reflective of this new information will be provided to the PRP Steering Committee in mid-November, once General Notice letters have been sent to the new parties,

A PRP Steering Committee has been formed. The present contacts for the Steering Committee are Rob Kirsch (617/526-6779) and Paul Wallach (617/526-6000) with the law firm of Hale and Dorr and

U M M - ^ o - ^ ^ ^ ,Ut lC.:v.«* l-rom: HC,;, <Pc.,^,^i tl tj ato a'^ d tz, c a P. es

Cynthia Bailey with the James River corporation (804/649-4379). The Committee has also fonned three subcommittees: 1) the Allocation Subcommittee (contact: Marc Silver (617/570-1869)); 2) the £e Minimis Subcommittee (contact: Harlan Doliner (617/439­8900)); and 3) the Technical Subcommittee (contacts: Gus Mopdy (804/343-8525) and Bill Morris (203/238-6754)).

This Committee has broad representation among both large and small contributors to the site and ia the only Committee with which EPA will negotiate. EPA understands that the final details are being worked out to merge the separate existing fie Minimis Committee headed by Tom Armstrong (203/522-3234) and Tom Harrison (203/275­0480) into the PRP Steering Committee referenced above. If you have any questions regarding this merger, please call Rob Kirsch, Tom Armstrong, Tom HarrJ,son or either of the two EPA legal contacts listed below.

You are strongly encouraged to join and actively participate in the PRP Steering Committee and its subcommittees. You should note that in prior settlements in cases such as this, EPA has made some attempt to recognize in the final allocation those parties that have joined the Steering Committee. In this case, EPA will consider and may reflect in the terms of any final settlement parties' participation in the Steering Committee. Should you choose not to participate in the Steering Committee, you will be given the opportunity to settle with the Government but only under the terms negotiated with the Committee.

If you have specific legal questions, please call Gretchen Muench at 617/565-4 904 or Lloyd Selbst at 617/565-3685. For technical questions, please call Michael Nalipinski at 617/223-5503. If you have general questions about any of the infonnation in this package, you can also call the SRSNE Information Line at 617/573­5724.

We look forward to completing the information-gathering necessary to facilitate a prompt and fair settlement of this case.

Attachments

J - ^ U - ^ t o - ^ ^ TU£ .15:e5 F r o m : FCM CP<...,&Z.. t,^«oe^a6T«

ATTACHMENT I

Ouestions and Answers

J « N - ^ e - ^ £ ^TUe 15:^t> F r o m : , pen. CPo.o,;^Z. > t5aeee^:^..T:. es

Questions ( Answers Solventa Recovery Service of New England

PRP Informational Meeting July le, 1992 ' Boston, Kassaehuaetts

The following is a paraphrased summary of the major questions and answers from the July 16, 1992, PRP informational meeting:

What efforts did EPA make after listing SRS on the NFL to Improve the operation cf the site and prevent additional contamination?

As mentioned, there was a Consent Decree (CD) signed in 1983 which called for SRSNE to install an interceptor well system to prevent further migration of contamination In the groundwater. The interceptor well system became operational in 1986.

As early as 1984, EPA collected stipulated penalties from SRSNE in an effort to enforce the terms of the CD.

Also in 1986, recognizing that SRSNE was not in compliance with hazardous waste management standards, the State of Connecticut issued a RCRA permit that established a schedule for SRSNE to come into compliance with RCRA requirements. Because violations of the terms of the CD and its RCRA permit continued, in 1988 EPA entered into coTTiprehensive negotiations to address these violations. At the same time, EPA asked SRSNE to perform an Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) under Superfund. SRSNE refused to conduct the RI/FS and the negotiations were discontinued.

EPA then decided to perform the RI/FS. EPA also performed an intensive Investigation of all violations at the Site, which led to the filing of a lawsuit against the owner in 1990.

In 1991, working with EPA, the State required SRSNE to cease operations and close its facility.

Since filing the federal lawsuit, EPA has engaged in negotiations with the owner of the site to settle this suit. As you know, EPA is also proceeding with the RI/FS.

What is the government doing to prevent another situation like eRS fzom happening in the future?

EPA is carrying out a vigorous enforcement program at RCRA facilities which include actions resulting in criminal as well as civil penalties. Regulatory agencies cannot ensure that all facilities are in full compliance all of the time. Generators have a responsibility to know who they are dealing with when they send wastes to a facility. It would be wise to investigate the compliance status and history of a facility before shipping wastes to that facility.

What are the time frames for the different types of disposal that occured at the SRSNE $ite?

Aerial photographs reveal that lagoons were installed between 1957-1965 and were used to dispose of wastes which were generated from the distilling and recovery processes.

JAN-26.-S3 TUE 15:eT Fr on, : F CM . <Pou . & 2 i > S e S S S S S ^ T S P. 0 6

These lagoons did not receive additional wastes after 1967. An open pit was used to incinerate flammable process wastes from the early 1960s through the 1970s. Releases from the handling of waste materials occurred throughout the life of the facility until closure in May of 1991.

What kind of documentation does EPA have of SRS Site operations, and how thorough is this documentation?

EPA is aware that fuel blending and solvent distillation took place at the site. Wastes were sent to other permitted sites. SRS typically did solvent distillation on a "batch" basis. There is excellent documentation of the fuel blending operation, but there is a gap correlating outgoing batches to specific facilities.

Is SRS a PRP at ether Superfund sites? Yes. SRS has been identified as a PRP at the Old Southington Landfill (CT) and the Ottati and Goss Site (NH).

Did SRS have insurance under RCRA? SRSNE was required by RCRA to carry liability insurance for sudden and accidental occurrences. It was also required to provide financial assurance for closure costs.

Where will the monies recovered from the owner/operator go? To reimburse the government for past and future cleanup costs.

Has SRS filed for bankruptcy? SRSNE has not sought bankruptcy protection.

will EFA seek recovery of RCRA costs? Yes. RCRA costs will be included among the past costs.

If the government settles with the owner, would the settlement include contribution protection? Yes,

>

What kind cf treatment is in place for the interceptor system? The interceptor system contains twenty-five wells to collect groundwater effluent which is now being treated by the ultra-violet/oxidation system recently installed by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.

Does EPA anticipate that the remedy will include cleanup of the town veils?

EPA's objective is for the remedial action to facilitate the ultimate reuse of the town production wells upon the completion of the cleanup.

Is EPA liable for the contamination that occurred at SRS following the listing of the facility on the National Priorities List (NPL)?

J e . N - 2 S - S . 3 T U E 1 5 : 0 _ e F r o m : F C M < P c x c I f c 2 i > 5 0 6 6 8 9 8 6 7 6 ^ p . 6 - ,

No. Regulatory agencies are immune from liability for non­compliance that occurs at a regulated facility. This is also true for facilities listed on the NPL.

What kinds of records does EPA have regarding what was sent to the site?

EPA used 42 different types of documentation in compiling its transactional data base. Most transactions are documented in RCRA manifests and logbook records.

What has EFA done about transporters? SRS was the principal transporter of wastes to its facility. EPA is still gathering information about other transporters and will decide whether to notice them as PRPs in the future. ^

Has EPA named any property owners other than SRS as a PFF? No.

Will EFA take the costs of answering 104(e) informational requests into account when preparing such requests?

Yes. EPA will limit the number of parties who receive 104(e) letters and tailor the scope of the questions in order to minimize the effort necesary to adequately respond.

How will EPA deal with credits of waste materials that came back out of the Site and were sent to another facility or back tc the generator cf the material?

The volumetric ranking was prepared using only wastes that went in to SRSNE, not waste that was shipped out. EPA has chosen this approach because it does not have sufficient information on material that left the site. This approach is also consistent with Superfund program policy.

Has the State of Connecticut made any provisions regarding release from liability under state lav?

The State of Connecticut intends to fully participate in negotiations in order to resolve the State's claims.

Have any government agencies been noticed of potential liability as a PRP?

The U.S. Navy and the U.S. Post Office, as well as the States of CT, ME, MA, NH, and VT were issued General Notice Letters.

If liability is not determined voluaetrlcally, will costs be allocated equally among all parties?

Liability under CERCLA is joint and several meaning any one party can be held responsible for all of the costs of cleanup. Liability is not based on volumetric ranking. PRPs may use the volumetric ranking as well as other factors in allocating costs among themselves.

JAN-Se-'SS TUE 15:09 F r o m : FCM C P a u ( £ E i > 5 0 8 6 8 9 8 6 7 8 P. 0 8

Who ere the individuals that comprise the PRP Steering committee and how are they compensated for their work?

The steering Committee is comprised mainly of attorneys representing the various PRP interests. These representatives are compensated by funds generated by the PRPs.

Was the investigation and the future cleanup work at the site put out for bid?

EPA is using consultants available through its long-term contracts to perform the RI/FS and the engineering evaluation/cost analysis in support of a possible non-time critical removal action at the site.

Where do PRPs send questions concerning corporate succesaorsbip? These questions should be sent to: Marilyn K. Goldberg, U.S. EPA, P.O. Box 221470, Chantilly, Virginia 22022.

How can PRPs get information on EPA's early de minimis settlement policy?

Call the SRS information line at (617) 565-5724 and leave a message requesting the information and an address to which it can be sent.

Has EPA established a tentative cut-off for de minimis settlement?

No. EPA has not yet made any decisions regarding a de ininimis settlement and intends to discuss this matter with the Steering Committee.

Does EPA conduct de nicromia settlements? The EPA has no formal guidance or procedures for de micromis settlements but a de minimis settlement could be structured to consider the concerns of the very small contributors.

Does EPA have estimates regarding the amount of anticipated response costs or the past ^osts?

An overall estimate of response costs will not be available until the Record of Decision (ROD) is signed. This is scheduled for the Spring of 1994. The average costs for cleanup of a Superfund site is currently approximately $2 6 million. Past costs for the RI/FS and the PRP search are about $3.35 million to date.

Is there any possibility for an Non-binding Allocation of Responsibility (NBAR)?

EPA is providing the volumetric ranking to the PRPs as a tool for for determining an allocation scheme. EPA would be willing to discuss whether an NBAR would be useful with the PRPs as the settlement process progresses.

JAM-26-'935 TUE 15:10 F r o m : FCM CPaul&Zi > 5 0 8 6 8 9 8 6 7 8 P.09

ATTACHMENT tX

Transactional Document Review

-JAN-26-9S TUE 15:11 F r o m : FCM <Pau 1 8.2 i > 5 0 8 6 8 9 8 6 7 8 P. 10

Transactional "Review Statement

Re: solvents Recovery Service of New England Superfund site, Southington, Connecticut

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is forwarding to you copies of the documents on which EPA has relied to determine the volume of hazardous substances that you sent to the Solvents Recovery Service of New England Superfund Site in southington, Connecticut (hereinafter "SRSNE" or "the Site") for treatment or disposal. A summary of your transactions is provided in Attachment II.D. and the source documents are provided in Attachment II.E.

EPA has made the decision to allow Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) an opportunity to request a review of any of their transactions with SRSNE. Attachment II.B. provides instructions and forms for you to use in conducting this review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

EPA believes that it is possible to enter into a minimis settlement with small volume generators of waste at the Site. A volumetric ranking will be used to determine the amount of money that each settling d^ minimis party must pay to the Government to resolve its liability with respect to the SRSNE Site. That being the case, EPA believes it is very important that the Government have accurate information about transactions with SRSNE, A successful ^ minimis settlement will be dependent upon every party conducting a good faith review of all its transactions with SRSNE during the timeframe that SRSNE was in operation (1955 - 1991) and making certain that the volumetric ranking correctly reflects its contribution of waste materials to SRSNE.

At the time a tentative dg minimis settlement is reached, you will, if you a r e a §^ minimis party, be asked to sign the settlement and certify that the volume of waste attributed to you accurately reflects your volumetric contribution to the Site. One of the principal purposes of this transactional review is to ensure that at the time of settlement, all minimis parties will be able to sign the certification. Further, the decision as to which parties will be offered the opportunity to enter into the iJe minimis settlement will be based upon each party's ranking by volume. For this reason also, it is important that the ranking be accurate. This transactional review will be your one opportunity to request that EPA reexamine the documents that reflect your volumetric contribution to the Site.

TRANSACTIONAL REVIEW

To facilitate your review of your transactions, EPA has provided a summary of your transactions in Attachment II.D. and the source

J A N — 2 6 - 9 3 T U E 1 5 • i -> ir . . 1 5 . 1 2 P j , o m : F C M C P a u I S 2 i > 5 0 8 6 8 9 8 6 7 8

P . 1 1

documents in Attachment II.E. Please review the documents by referring to the enclosed instructions. If, after a good faith review of your transactions with SRSNE, you believe you have evidence that (1) a transaction is incorrectly reflected in the documents that EPA is providing to you or (2) a transaction is not reflected at all in these documents, you can request that EPA review that transaction and correct the volumes attributed to you. To request that EPA reexamine a transaction, you must complete the enclosed transactional review form and additional transaction form in accordance with the instructions provided in Attachments II.B and II.C, respectively. Requests which are not completed in accordance with the instructions will not be considered.

EPA's objective is to obtain accurate information as to all transactions with SRSNE. To prevent parties from requesting reviews of only transactions that decrease their volume, requests for reviews must also identify all transactions that your records indicate are incorrectly reflected in EPA's documents or not reflected at all in EPA's documents, including volume increases. You are required, accordingly, if you choose to request a transactional review, to provide all information and documents related to any transactions with SRSNE that are incorrectly recorded or riot recorded at all on the documents provided to you. Additional transactions that EPA has not previously documented should be entered on the form contained in Attachment II.C,'

AUDIT OF DATABASE BY SUBPQENA

To ensure a settlement which is fair to all parties, so that those who contemplate entering into settlements with the Government have confidence that all parties who are contributing to a settlement are doing so proportionate to the volume pf waste they sent to the Site, EPA plans to take other steps in addition to the certification.

This requirement to provide a full response, should you decide to respond, is being imposed pursuant to Section 104(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (also known as the superfund Lav) 42 U.S.C. § 9604(e), and Section 3007 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. S 6927. Failure to provide complete and truthful information may result in legal action by EPA. EPA may seek penalties of up to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for each day of non-compliance with CERCLA 104(e) and/or RCRA § 3007. in addition, providing false fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations on a transactional review form may lead to the Imposition of criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 or RCRA § 3008(d),

P . 1 2 J A N - 2 6 - 9 3 T U e 1 5 : 1 4 F r o m : FCM C P a u l & Z i > 5 0 8 6 8 9 8 6 7 8

Specifically, in order to ensure that all transactions that reflect increases, as well as decreases, in a party's volume are accurately reported to EPA, EPA plans to randomly audit PRPs' volumetric shares by use of its subpoena authority pursuant to Section 122(e)(3)(B) of CERCLA, This means that EPA may choose to conduct an intensive evaluation of your transactions which could involve a subpoena being issued to you requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of documents that relate to transactions with SRSNE. This will ensure that all parties, in good faith, question appropriate individuals including past and current employees, and search their records during the relevant timeframe (1955 - 1991) and then, if necessary, report all additional waste shipments to EPA. Regardless of whether or not you choose to have EPA review your transactions, you may QTC may not be audited,

SUBMITTAL OF REOUEST FOR REVIEW AND EPA RESPONSE

Completed transactional review forms (Attachment II.B.), additional transaction forms (Attachment II.C), and all appropriate supporting documentation should be submitted by November 15, 1992, to:

Marilyn K. Goldberg U.S. Environmental Protection Agency P.O. BOX 221470 Chantilly, VA 22022

This will be your onlv opportunity to challenge the provided documents upon which EPA has relied to determine your volumetric ranking. If EPA's transactional review indicates inaccuracies in its ranking list, EPA will make appropriate adjustments. EPA will provide you with a summary of the conclusions reached in reviewing your submittals and a final revised volumetric ranking. EPA will also provide these conclusions to the PRP Steering Committee.

FURTHER INFORMATION

If you have any technical questions regarding any of this material, please call the SRSNE information line at (617) 573-5724. If you have any legal questions or your attorney wishes to call EPA, please call Lloyd Selbst (€17) 565-3685.

^-^W^tL-iiEtL^^ Merrill S. Hohman, Director Waste Management- Division U.S. EPA, Region I

J A N - 2 6 - 9 5 TUE 15:15 F r o m : F C M <Pau1&Zi > 5 0 8 6 8 9 8 6 7 8 P . 1 3

ATTACHMENT 11.A,

SOLVENTS RECOVERY SERVICE OF NEW SKGLANI> TRANSACTIONAL DATABASE ASSUMPTIONS

GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS

1. All wastes were considered hazardous substances under CERCLA since the Site was a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility.

2. conversion factors - all waste volumes were converted to gallons. If the waste volumes on the transactional documents were not stated in gallons, the following factors were used to convert waste volumes to gallons:

1 drum = 55 gallons 1 barrel ^ 55 gallons 1 pail •= 5 gallons 1 can = 5 gallons 1 bucket = 5 gallons 1 residual drum - 2 gallons 1 liter = 0.26 gallons 1 pound ^ 0,1199 gallons*

*0n the occasions where the waste unit was stated only in pounds the exact composition and specific gravity of the waste was unknown. The specific gravity of water was used to convert pounds to gallons,

ASSUMPTIONS SPECIFIC TO LOGBOOK DATA (1956-1974)

1. All entries were assumed to be waste-in transactions.

2. The identified customer was assumed to be the generator of the waste.

3. volume units - if the unit for volume was not stated in the logbook data entry, the following units, based on information provided by SRSNE, were used to calculate the w^ste-in volumes:

a) Volumes less than 150 were assumed to be drums.

b) Volumes between 150 and 6,000 were assumed to be gallons.

c) Volumes over 6,000 were assumed to pounds.

d) Where transactions were borderline, the determination of units was based on other transactions attributed to the same party.

i A N - 2 6 - 9 3 TUE 15:16 F r o m : FCM <Paulfc2i> 5 0 8 6 8 9 8 6 7 8 P. K

4. Multiple volume entries - if the volume in the logbook had more than one entry recorded, the following guidelines were used:

a) For volumes less than 150 (assumed to be drums), where two or more volumes were stated with spaces, hyphens, or plus signs between them, the total was coded on the assumption the numbers represented a multiple shipment or different waste types were being distinguished. An exception was if three or more volumes were listed with the last figure being the sum of the others. These types of multiple volume entries were therefore coded as follows:

"7,..e",v.»7 + 8", "7 - 6" and "7 - 6 - 15" would be coded as 15 drums;

"7 - 8 - 14" would be coded as 29 drums;

"7#7" would be coded as 7 (assuming #7 described the drum type).

b) If the comment "MT" or "clean" was written next to the volume, it was assumed to identify empty drums, for example:

"7 full + 8 MT" and "7 full + 8 clean" were coded as 7 drums.

c) If two volumes were identified, one falling in the gallons range and one in the pounds range, it was assumed that the volumes represented the gallons and pounds of a single quantity of waste:

"4,000 ....32,000" would be coded as 4,000 gallons and 32,000 pounds for the transaction.

5. Illegible Volume Entries - If volumes in the logbook were partially illegible, the interpretation resulting in the lowest volume for the transaction was coded. For example, if it was unclear whether a volume was "7" or "9", the volume was coded as 7.

6. Waste Tvoes - The following assumptions were made in interpreting the abbreviations of waste type:

TH, THIN - Thinner PE, PER, PERC, PERK, PCE - perchloroethane NAP, NA - Naptha KEK - Methyl Ethyl Ketone TRI - Trichloroethylene or 1,1,1 - Trichloroethane ACET - Acetone or Acetate

J A N - 2 6 - 9 3 TUE 1 5 : 1 7 F r o m : FCM C P a u I fcZ i > 5 0 8 6 8 9 8 6 7 8 P . 1 5

ISO ACET - Isopropyl Acetate XYL - Xylol or Xylene ALC - Alcohol LAC - Lacquer TURP - Turpentine ISOBUT ALC - Tsobutyl Alcohol CHLOR, CH - Chlorinated Solvents MECL, M. CHLORIDE - Methyl Chloride TOL - Toluene/Toluol EA, E, ACETATE - Ethyl Acetate BU ACET - Butyl Acetate MS - Mineral Spirits

ASSUMPTIONS SPECIFIC TO THE WEEKLY RECEIPT JOURNALS (1970-1980)

1. All entries were assumed to be waste-in transactions.

2. The identified customer was assumed to be the generator,

ASSUMPTIONS SPECIFIC TO THE CUSTOMER flLES (1978-1988, 1990-1991)

1. All transactions assigned an order number by SRSNE were assumed to be waste-in transactions to SRSNE.

2. Empty drum transactions were not coded unless the drums were manifested, and there was evidence of residual material in the drums. This evidence included the assignment of a Product Identification Number (PIN) to the empty drums and the assignment of an order number to the transaction. Empty drums were assumed to contain two gallons of hazardous substances.

3. Volume Discrepancies - When coding volume where there was a discrepancy, the following assumptions were used:

a) If there was a discrepancy between a manifest and the SRSNE processing documents for a gallon volxme of a bulk shipment, the gallon volume stated on the manifest was coded,

b) If there was a discrepancy on the manifest between the number of gallons and drums, then the volume supported by the other documents was coded. [For example, the manifest states 2 drums and 165 gallons, and the SRSNE processing documents support 2 drums. Two drums would be coded. If the SRSNE documents support 3 dnims (which equals 165 gallons), the volume would be coded as 3 drums and 165 gallons,]

c) If there was a discrepancy between the number of drums

j r A N - 2 6 - 9 3 TUE 1 5 : 1 8 F r o m : FCM < P a . o I &2 i > 5 0 8 6 8 9 8 6 7 8 . P . 1 6

on the manifest and on the SRSNE processing documents, the number of drums from the manifest was coded, unless the manifest was unclear, in which case the number of drums was coded from the SRSNE processing documents.

J A H - 2 6 - 9 3 TUE 15:19 F r o m : FCM <Po.u . & 2 i . 5 0 8 6 8 9 8 6 7 8 p . , 7

ATTACHMENT II.B.

Instructions for Completing Transactional Review rorm

1. Identify any transaction(s) listed on your transactional summary sheet (Attachment II.D.) for which you have documentation which disputes the volumes in EPA's data base.

Although this review covers activities that occurred many years ago, you should conduct this review (if you so decide) to the best of your ability. You should conduct a search of past records and documents that relate to the Site or past waste disposal/treatment practices. You should also seek out information and documents from your employees, past employees, and agents. You may provide estimated dates and data, designating them as such, when precise information is not available, Your review should cover the period being investigated (1955 - 1991),

You are required to respond on behalf of the addressee and the addressee's officers, managers, employees, contractors, trustees, successors, assigns, and agents, and any predecessor or successor corporations, companies, or operations of the addressee,

2, Evaluate both sets of documents, yours and EPA's, against the assumptions that EPA has used in compiling the data base. These assumptions are described in Attachment II.A, and should explain how EPA arrived at its conclusions working from the transactional documents. The assumptions are drawn from EPA's experience at many Superfund sites. Moreover, EPA has determined that they are applicable to SRSNE's operations specifically. Applying the same assumptions with respect to all PRPs at a Superfund site is necessary to have a uniform way of determining the contribution of wastes to the Site by each party.

EPA will not consider disagreements with the assumptions themselves, but will consider potential errors in their application. For example, EPA assumed that SRSNE used the abbreviation "TH" in describing the waste type for a transaction to mean thinner and, therefore, that the waste was a hazardous substance. EPA will not reconsider whether it makes sense for EPA to assume the "TH" is an abbreviation for thinner. If you have documentary evidence, however. Indicating that in a specific transaction "TH" was the abbreviation for a substance that was neither thinner nor a hazardous substance, EPA will consider that evidence in making a decision whether to delete that transaction from the volumes attributed to you. As another example, EPA assumed that the company that SRSNE identified as the customer was the generator of the waste. EPA will not

J A N - 2 6 - 9 3 TUE 15:20 F r o m : FCM CPauiaZi > 5 0 8 6 8 9 8 6 7 8 P.18

revisit that assumption. EPA will, however, consider documentary evidence that in a specific transaction a company other than the customer shown on SRSNE's records was the generator.

3. If, following a review of the documents in light of the assumptions, you still believe that EPA has attributed incorrect volumes to you for one or more transactions, please complete the form in this attachment.

4. To complete the form, list transactions in chronological order and provide the following information:

a. Date of Transaction: Please record In Column 1 the date when the transaction occurred; this usually refers to the date when"the waste was delivered to SRSNE.

b. EPA Document Nuaber: Please record in Column 2 the number of the document EPA has provided in Attachment II.E. in which the volume in question is recorded.

c. EPA Volxame: Please record in Column 3 the volume of waste EPA has attributed to you for the transaction as evidenced by the documents that EPA has provided to you in Attachment II.E.

d. Your Volume: Please record in Column 4 the amount of waste that you believe is attributable to you for that transaction. You should record only incoming wastes; wastes that were recycled or returned to the generator should not be subtracted from the volume count,

e. Description of Your Documentation: Please provide and number all documentation supporting your claim for a volume change. Enter into Column 5 the appropriate documentation number(s) and a brief description of the document(s) that supports your claim for a particular transaction.

f. Issues/Comments: In Column 6, please provide any comments which will facilitate the review of your transaction or explain any issues you have identified with respect to the transaction which are not otherwise captured on the form.

5. Transaction review requests must provide all requested • information even though you may believe that it includes confidential information or trade secrets. You may, if you wish, assert a confidentiality claim covering part or all of the information you provide, pursuant to Sections 104(e)(7)(E) and (F) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C,-SS 9604(e)(7)(E) and (F); Section 3007(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6927(b); and 40

J«N-2fe-93 TUE 15:21 F r o m : F C M < P o . u \ & Z i > b0^^8^a6'^fi T». 19

C.F.R. § 2.203(b). Attach a cover sheet, stamped or typed legend, or other notice employing language such as "trade secret" or "proprietary" or "company confidential" to the information at the time it is submitted. Information covered by such a claim will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent, and only by means of the procedures, provided in 40 C.F.R. S§ 2,201-2.311, If no such Claim accompanies the information when It is received by EPA, it may be made available to the public by EPA without further notice to you. You should read the above-cited regulations carefully before asserting a business confidentiality claim, since certain categories of information are not properly the subject of such a claim.

The information which you submit in connection with this request will be disclosed by EPA to authorized representatives of^the United States, pursuant to 40 CF.R. S 2.310(h), notwithstanding your assertion that all or part of it is confidential business information. Please be advised that EPA intends to disclose all information received in response to this letter to its private contractor, TechLaw, Inc., which it has retained (under Contract No. 68­W9-0002) to organize and analyze this information. In addition, EPA may also disclose information that is not claimed as confidential business information to members of the PRP Steering Committee,

6. Please return this completed form and the documents which support the volume you claim to be correct no later than November 15, 1992 to:

Marilyn K. Goldberg U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

P.O. Box 221470 Chantilly, VA 22022

:> 2

• K)

1

ATTACHMENT II.B. <continued) ID W

Transactional Review Form C m

Nama of Respondent: Ul

Coluom 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 M

Tl

Date ofTransaction

EPA Docuuent #

EPAVolume

Your Volume

Description of Your Documentation

Issues/ coiments

0

II

Tl n

•0

• fl c » N

01 0 OD ON CO >£» CO

CO

t)

.

J A H - 2 6 - 9 i . T U E 1 5 : 2 3 F r o m : F C M < P o n j l & 2 i > 5 0 8 6 8 9 8 6 7 8 P . 2 1

ATTACHMENT II.C.

Instructions for Providing information on Additional Transactions

1. Identify any transactions involving waste sent by you to SRSNE that are not reflected on the transactional summary sheet (Attachment II.D,).

Although these transactions may have occurred many years ago, you should provide the requested information to the best of your ability. You should conduct a search of past records and documents that relate to the Site or past waste disposal/treatment practices. You should also seek out information and documents from your employees, past employees, and agents. You may provide estimated dates and data, designating^them as such, when precise information is not available. Your review should cover the period being investigated (1955 - 1991),

You are required to respond on behalf of the addressee and the addressee's officers, managers, employees, contractors, trustees, successors, assigns, and agents, and any predecessor or successor corporations, companies, or operations of the addressee,

2. Record each additional transaction in chronological order on the form found in this attachment.

3. For each transaction, provide the following information:

a. Date of Transactions Please record in Column l the date the waste was brought to SRSNE or, if unknown, the date the waste left your facility.

b. Volume of the Transaction: Please record the amount of waste brought to SRSNE in Column 2. Volume should be recorded consistent with the assumptions in Attachment II.A.

c. Waate Type: Waste type should be expressed in terms of the chemical name in column 9. If the chemical name is unknown, the trade name of the compound should be provided with the manufacturer's name.

d. Description of Oocumentation: Please provide and number the documentation which evidences the transaction(s) you are identifying. Enter into Column 4 the number(s) and a brief description of the document(s) supporting the transaction.

Only brokers who are Identifying additional transactions must also provide the following;

j f A N - 2 6 - 9 3 TUE 1 5 : 2 A F r o m : FCM C P a u l & Z i > 5 0 8 6 8 9 8 6 7 8 P . 2 2

e. Name and Address of Generator: For additional transactions identified by brokers (i.e., SRSNE customers who are not generators) please provide in Column 5 the name and address of the generator of the waste involved the identified transaction.

You must provide all requested information on additional transactions even though you may believe that it includes confidential information or trade secrets. You may, if you wish, assert a confidentiality claim covering part or all of the infonnation you provide, pursuant to Section 104(e)(7)(E) and (F) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9604(e)(7)(E) and (F) ; Section 3007(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S,C. § 6927(b); and 40 C.F.R. § 2,203(b). Attach a cover sheet, stamped or typed legend, or other notice employing language such as "trade secret" or "proprietary" or "company confidential" to the information at the time it is submitted. Information covered by such a claim will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent, and only by means of the procedures, provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 2.201­2.311. If no such claim accompanies the information when it is received by EPA, it may be made available to the public by EPA without further notice to you. You should read the ., above-cited regulations carefully before asserting a business confidentiality claim, since certain categories of information are not properly the subject of such a claim.

The information which you submit in connection with this request will be disclosed by EPA to authorized representatives of the United States, pursuant to 40 C.F.R, § 2.310(h), notwithstanding your assertion that all or part of it is confidential business information. Please be advised that EPA intends to disclose all information received in response to this letter to its private contractor, Techlaw, Inc., which it has retained (under Contract Ho. 68­W9-0002), to organize and analyze this information. In addition, EPA may also disclose information that is not claimed as confidential business information to members of the PRP Steering Committee.

Please provide the completed form and all supporting documentation no later than November 15, 1992 to:

Marilyn K. Goldberg U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

P.O. Box 221470 Chantilly, VA 22022

ATTACHMENT II.C. (continued)

Additional Transactions Form

Hame of Respondent:

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column S

Date of Voliime of Waste Description of Name and Address Transaction T r a n s a c t i o n Type Do<nimen ta t ion

(please attach) of Generator (for brokered trans­actions only)