Eastland Woolen Mill Superfund Site Proposed

Is . , !u..u I\cotJi Cc. Vr isHIE: C • .•»••.•* - v.. BREAK: 4.°! O'llihR: _ EasttancnVooJei^V|jJ^uper^

No Further Action Necessary to Address Contamination in the East Branch of the Sebasticook River

What do you think? The Cleanup First Meeting Proposal... You are invited to attend an Public Information Meeting to informational public meeting on learn more about this proposed After careful study of the June 29th, 2004 to learn about plan

Eastland Woolen Mill EPA's Proposed Plan to take no lh Superfund Site, EPA is further action regarding the East June 29 2004 proposing that no further Branch of the Sebasticook 7:00 p.m. action is necessary to River. At the meeting, EPA Corinna School Gymnasium address the contamination Stetson Road will respond to your questions Route 222 in the sediments and and concerns about the No Corinna, ME floodplain soil of the East Further Action proposal and Branch of the Sebasticook how it may affect you. For Second Meeting River, including the area further information about this Formal Comment Session to known as the Old Dump. meeting, call EPA Community give citizens the opportunity to Involvement Coordinator Pam enter official comments for EPA has determined that the Harting-Barrat (617)918-1318, public record about this contamination found in the or toll-free at proposed plan East Branch of the 1-888-372-7341 ext. 81318. Sebasticook River surface August 10th 2004 water, sediments, floodplain EPA is accepting public at 7:00 p.m. soil (including the Old comment on this cleanup Corinna School Gymnasium Dump) and biota does not proposal from July 13th 2004 Stetson Road pose an unacceptable risk to through August 12th 2004. You human health and the do not have to be a technical environment. The detailed expert to comment. If you have ecological studies a concern or preference Send written comments concluded that the regarding EPA's proposed postmarked no later than August biological integrity of the cleanup plan, EPA wants to hear 12*200410: Operable Unit E (OU IT) from you before making a final Edward Hathaway, RPM area has not been decision on how to protect your U.S. EPA New England significantly degraded by community. To provide formal 1 Congress Street the contamination. comments, you may: Suite 1100 (HBT) Boston, MA 02114-2023 Offer oral comments during the comment portion of the formal E-mail comments by August 12* th * Definitions for words that public hearing on August 10 2004 to: [email protected] appear in bold can be found in (see page 9 for more details). the glossary.

SDMS DocID 000210635 FORMER EASTLAND WOOLEN MILL BUILDING 14 AREA

OPERABLE UNIT

AREAS SUBJECT TO EARLY CLEANUP

EXTENT OF OPERABLE UNITS

EAST BRANCH SEBASTICOOK RIVER

SCALE: 1"=750'

FIGURE 1 SITE PLAN SHOWING OPERABLE UNIT BOUNDARIES AND EASTLAND WOOLEN MILL SITE STUDY AREAS CORINNA, MAINE Scope and Role of this Action Site History The No Further Action proposal presented in this Eastland Woolen Mill operated as a wool Proposed Plan represents EPA's cleanup approach for and blended wool textile facility from 1912 to 1996. the area known as "Operable Unit IF', which is the third phase of EPA's overall cleanup strategy for the Eastland Liquid wastes from the Mill were Woolen Mill Superfund Site. The three phases of the discharged to the East Branch of the cleanup strategy are discussed briefly below. (See Sebasticook River until approximately Figure 1: Site Plan). 1969 when the local sewage treatment plant was built. First phase of cleanup activity- Non-Time Critical In 1983, contamination of groundwater Removal Action (NTCRA). or early cleanup. The first was discovered and carbon filters were phase of the cleanup activity began in July 1999 with installed on five water supplies. the demolition of the former Eastland Woolen Mill. By 1988, ten water supplies were fitted During the period from 1999 through 2003, EPA with carbon filters. completed the excavation and treatment of 100,000 tons of contaminated soil along with the partial restoration of Eastland Woolen Mill company performed the Site. investigations to assess the contamination from 1984 - 1995. Two activities awaiting completion under the NTCRA: A water line was installed in 1995 to provide water for those residences and * Final grading and site restoration. The majority of businesses with contaminated wells. this work will be completed in 2004. Eastland Woolen Mill ceased operations in 1996. 4 In-situ oxidation of the deep overburden/shallow bedrock contamination. This work will continue Maine DEP removed 54,673 pounds of into 2005 and possibly, 2006. various hazardous substances from the closed Mill in 1997. Second phase of cleanup activity- Long-Term Site EPA began investigations of the Eastland Cleanup (Remedial Action) for Groundwater (Operable Woolen Mill in December 1998. Unit D. The second phase of cleanup activity, or Operable Unit I, targets the contaminated groundwater EPA placed the Eastland Woolen Mill on beneath the former Eastland Woolen Mill complex and the National Priorities List (Superfund list) in July 1999. downtown Corinna. EPA is currently completing the design for the Operable Unit I cleanup. EPA signed the Action Memorandum to initiate early cleanup action in July 1999. Third phase of cleanup activity Sediments/Floodplain Soils within the East Branch of EPA signed the Record of Decision for the Sebasticook River and the Old Dump (Operable Operable Unit I - groundwater cleanup in September 2002. Unit IT). The third phase of cleanup activities, or Operable Unit n, includes all remaining areas of Site EPA completed the excavation and contamination not included within the NTCRA or OU treatment of soil as part of early cleanup I. The areas included within OU II are the sediment action in October 2003. and floodplan soil of the East Branch of the Sebasticook River extending from the end of the NTCRA excavation to Sebasticook Lake, The initial physical survey of the OU U area revealed 14 including the area known as the "Old Dump." This distinct floodplain areas and seven distinct river areas Proposed Plan describes the investigations, results, that were evaluated for contamination as part of the RI and EPA's proposed cleanup approach for these field programs. As part of the Baseline Ecological Risk areas. See Figure 2 for the extent of OU n. Assessment, areas with similar physical characteristics were combined resulting in the identification of two Remedial Investigation Program floodplain soil exposure areas and five sediment exposure areas. See Figure 3 which shows the A Remedial Investigation (RI) involves the collection floodplain and sediment exposure areas. Only the of data to determine the nature and extent of portion of Sediment Exposure Area E which is contamination at a site. The RI for the Eastland contaminated (which is the section about 1 mile north of Woolen Mill was performed from 1999 - 2001. The Sebasticcok Lake) is shown on Figure 3. To identify Remedial Investigation Report for OU I and OU n areas of contamination within these floodplain and and the Feasibility Study Report for OU I were sediment exposure areas, EPA performed the following released in July 2002. studies:

A supplemental RI field investigation program was * Placed 392 vapor diffusion samplers in the river bed conducted during 2002 and 2003 to better define the to determine areas where contamination may be extent of contamination in the OU n areas and to present; better assess the potential risks to the ecological f Installed 36 borings into the sediment to delineate receptors from the contamination. A Supplemental the depth of contamination; and RI Report and Revised Baseline Ecological Risk 4 Collected 258 sediment and 402 floodplain soil Assessment Report containing the results of the samples to identify the contaminants that are present studies and revised risk evaluation will be released in the sediment and floodplain soil and to delineate July 12, 2004. The data collected as part of the the extent of the contamination. Supplemental RI did not indicate a need to revised the Human Health Risk Assessment. The July 2002 Using these data, EPA performed studies to obtain a Human Health Risk Assessment is the final Human better understanding of the potential impacts of the Risk Assessment for OU U. A summary of the contamination on the ecological receptors at the Site. findings of the combined RI and Supplemental RI are The studies included: presented below. * Placement of very small aquatic organisms in test chambers within the river sediments to evaluate East Branch of the Sebasticook River toxicity (in-situ toxicity testing); Sediment and Floodplain Soil (including 4 Exposure of laboratory test organisms to sediment the Old Dump) and floodplain soil samples collected from the Site (ex-situ toxicity testing); The OU n component of the RI documents the * Bioaccumulation studies of earthworms using nature and extent of contamination in surface water floodplain soil; and sediments of the East Branch of the Sebasticook 4 Collection and analysis of 18 fish (fillets and whole River and the associated floodplain soil, including fish) samples, 9 mussel samples, and 8 crayfish the area known as the Old Dump. The investigation samples to assess contamination levels in these study area extended for approximately four miles receptors and provide bioaccumulation information; from downtown Corinna to Sebasticook Lake. t Field survey of plant communities in the floodplain exposure areas; P:V>rol«ct«\(aDO\Pn»l«ct»\508«S\>>ax11u»g»*.dwg Wot 16 JKI 2004 - 3:5IP™ fboettn«r

< -v^jrv4. .pj^vv^t •r-y--'v)^^h. 3;--i >:< \± •' -'•'r j ' < \; -.X-l/vvm.-t ~e ^O R IAV.:tN i|* >\r-mtr^.. - i'\.\f. ' '". -'J :i V^^y»;-;_^.V H>.^-/s**1 • - i; ' T» ' \ "V rT' -M r \ - i * - t*x • . j, § * . i „> - . -f i i. ; i-piS«|-W.-. •>-«-v • ,„•>? .•-.,jtei>S vi •• . Hr.*A -,. , • - /.:x:;^i.j •/• ^;. V!g:v:;

1. REFTRENCt: LOOOTOB FOR FWSmnTEX MUSSEL »un£ (UNOXN UUS) NOT SWUM. 2. UW> SOURCE: USCS DOCTEB. SMIUM), CORMN*. STETSON. WUKCORT, WO n.YUOUTM, UE. 7.5 MNUTE OtMORANOLIS. RGURE 2 OU II LOCATION MAP 0 2,000 4,000 PREPARED BY:/DATE: BGF/2-3-04 EASTLAND WOOLEN MILL SITE Approximate Scale in feet CHECKED BY:/DATE: INB/3-12-04. Fkxxjplaln Exposure AreaB

[Sediment Exposure Area D

Legend Figure 3 Area Remediated as part of NTCRA Sediment and Floodplam Exposure Areas S«dimenl Expoeura Area*

Floodplam Exposure Unit Boundary Eastland Woolen Mill Site Sediment Exposure Unit Boundary Connna, Maine | | Floodplains Prepared by INS | Checked by PS8 I MACTEC Engineenng and Consulting, Inc 4 Field survey of earthworm abundance in the above concentrations that required further consideration floodplain exposure areas; in the RJ and risk assessments. Figure 7 does not show 4 Field survey of the benthic macroinvertebrate the OU n study areas in Sebasticook Lake because the community in the sediment exposure areas; extent of Site related contamination ends about 1 miles 4 Field survey of the macroinvertebrate north of the Lake. Figure 8 shows the location of the community present on submerged aquatic biota samples. vegetation in the sediment exposure areas; and 4 Qualitative survey of fish abundance as part of What Does This Mean to You? the fish tissue collection. As part of the RJ/FS, EPA completed a Baseline Human The investigation program findings are Health Risk Assessment and a Baseline Ecological Risk summarized below: Assessment. After completing the supplemental remedial investigation program, EPA completed a 4 Chlorinated benzene compounds, several metals Revised Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment. (cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ("PAHs" Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment which are combustion by-products), dioxin, and several pesticides (dieldrin, DDT, ODD, DDE, The Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment evaluated chlordane) have been detected in the sediment of the potential for health impacts associated with human the East Branch of the Sebasticook River and use of the East Branch of the Sebasticook River associated floodplain soil at concentrations that sediment and floodplain soil (including the Old Dump). required a detailed evaluation of the potential The conclusion of the Baseline Risk Assessment are impact of these contaminants on human health summarized below: and the environment. 4 Pesticides (including DDT, DDE and dieldrin), 4 Human contact with the sediments and floodplain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, and soils does not present a health problem. dioxin were detected in fish tissue. 4 Human health contact with surface water does not 4 Chlorinated benzene compounds were detected pose a health problem. within the overburden groundwater at the Old 4 Ingestion of fish by people has a low level of Dump and are discharging along the edge of the potential health risk as long as Maine's established Old Dump to the East Branch of the Sebasticook fishing advisories are heeded. River. 4 There is not a human health threat to persons 4 Dieldrin appears to be related to the activities at visiting the Old Dump area and coming into contact the Eastland Woolen Mill. It is also possible that with the soil. the Eastland Woolen Mill may have contributed 4 Concentrations of chlorinated benzene compounds some amount of the other pesticides (DDT, in the overburden groundwater of the Old Dump ODD, DDE, and gamma chlordane). These would not be safe for consumption, however, pesticides were widely used and were detected in groundwater at the Old Dump is not considered to background locations. be a usable source of water. 4 The PAHs, PCBs, mercury, and dioxin do not appear to be related to the activities at the former Table 1 presents the quantitative estimate of potential Eastland Woolen Mill and may be of non-point risk to humans. The risk estimates are developed from source origin. a set of conservative assumptions such that the true risk is unlikely to be greater than the risk predicted. The Figures 4-7 identify the areas of sediment and resulting risk estimates are expressed in scientific floodplain soil where contamination was detected notation as a probability (e^ 1 x 10"6 for 1/1,000,000) R-OOOPLAIN AREA NO

FLOOOPLAINl » AREA NO

FLOODPLAJNi , i ; AREA NO 6 k I \

FLOODPLA1N AREA NO 7

Legend Figure 4 Roodptcm* Floodplam Soils Above PRGs FloodplMna Exowdrv PHQl Floodplams Nos 1 through 7 and 13 A HoaJptanS«mpto«v«itiPM*PC8«nd Irxxnwitca Dilt Eastland Woolen Mill Site Connna, Maine

Prepared by INB Checked by PSB MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc Legend _ Figure 5 * Segments with PesVPCB and Inorganic Data Sediment Contamination Above PRGs H Sediment Concentrations Above PRGs ESUs II though VI

Eastland Woolen Mill Site Connna, Maine

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc . FLOODPLAIN AREA NO 8

FLOODPLAJN , AREA NO 9 \

FLOOOPLAIN AREA NO 10

FLOODPLAIN; AREANO 11

FLOODPLAIN AREANO 12

Legend Figure 6 Floodplain Soils Above PRGs | | Floodplains Floodplain Nos. 8 through 12, and 14 Floodplauis Exceeding PRGs A Floodplain Samples with Pesl/PCB and Inorganics Data Eastland Woolen Mill Site Connna, Maine

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. • Index Map

Legend Figure 7 • December 2002 Sediment Sample (pesticides only) Sediment Contamination Above PRGs * Sediments with Pest/PCB and Inorganic Data ESUs VII and VIII ^1 Sediment Concentrations Above PRGs ™ Eastland Woolen Mill Site o zap SOP Connna, Maine

Prepared by 1NB | Checked by PSB | MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.. M Legend Figure8 A A Crayfish Sample i . , _ • Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Location Of BlOta Samples BAreas containing levels of contaminants that could potentially impact the environment if Fish Tissue Sample o 550 1,100 ^203 0 # Mussel Tesue sample Eastland Woolen Mill Site Corinna, Maine

jmani r ujnoject9\ConnnaVGI5\MapDocurT»ntaVOU2_RIAddendum EPA Pub Meeting Fg 6 rmd PDF P\Proj«ct*Connna\OU 2\Proposed PlarftRgure_8pdf 0^17/2004 9-37 AM fboflttnar and indicate (using this example), that an average In assessing the potential for adverse effects other than individual is not likely to have greater than a one in cancer, a hazard quotient (HQ) is calculated by dividing a million chance of developing cancer over 70 years the daily intake level by the reference dose (RfD) or as a result of site-related exposure (as defined) to the other suitable benchmark. Reference doses have been compound at the stated concentration. All risks developed by EPA, and they represent a level to which estimated represent an "excess lifetime cancer risk," an individual may be exposed that is not expected to or the additional cancer risk on top of that which we result in any deleterious effect. RfDs are derived from all face from other causes such as cigarette smoke or epidemiological or animal studies and incorporate exposure to ultraviolet radiation from the sun. The uncertainty factors to help ensure that adverse health chance of an individual developing cancer from all effects will not occur. A HQ < 1 indicates that a other (non-site-related) causes has been estimated to receptor's dose of a single contaminant is less than the be as high as one in three. EPA's generally RfD, and that toxic noncarcinogenic effects from that acceptable risk range for site-related exposure is 10"4 chemical are unlikely. The Hazard Index (HI) is to 10-6. generated by adding the HQs for all chemical(s) of Table 1 concern that affect the same target organ (e.g,, liver) within or across those media to which the same Human Health Risk individual may reasonably be exposed. A HI < 1 Estimated Hazard indicates that toxic noncarcinogenic effects are unlikely. Cancer Index Risk EPA generally defines an unacceptable risk to be a Risk for contact with or cancer risk greater that 10"* or an non-cancer hazard ingestion of Floodplain Soil or index above 1. As shown in Table 1, the estimated Sediment cancer risk for the Operable Unit n area is within the Exposure Area l(Eastland 2 x 10-5 0.9 EPA risk range and the non-cancer risk only exceeds 1 Woolen Mill to Moosehead based on the ingestion of mercury (which is not Mill) considered to be site related). Exposure Area 2 2x10-5 0.6 (Moosehead Mill to Old In addition to EPA's Baseline Human Health Risk Dump) Assessment, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) performed a Public Health Exposure Area 3(Old Dump 2x10-5 0.5 to Sebasticook Lake) Assessment (PHA) for the Eastland Woolen Mill. ATSDR did not identify any ongoing exposure which Old Dump 2x10-5 0.2/1 would result in health effects. Residents with Ingestion of Fish Tissue contaminated wells have been provided clean water, and highly contaminated soil and sediment in the areas most Upper East Branch of the 2 x 10-5 2 likely to be most often accessed have been removed. Sebasticook River (Moosehead Therefore, ATSDR classifies the former EWM site as a Mill to Corinna) current no apparent public health hazard. Lower East Branch of the 4 x 10-5 1 Sebasticook River (Old Dump to Based upon the results of the RI Report and the Sebsticook Lake) Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment, EPA has * Soil exposure frequency: 52 days per year for child/adult concluded that there are no unacceptable risks to human and 104 days per year for adolescent * Sediment exposure frequency: 26 days per year for health associated with the Site within the OUII area. child/adult and 52 days per year for adolescent * Fish ingestion rate of 25 grams/day for 350 days/year Additional Information Regarding Fish assessment answer for each receptor group to provide a Consumption: framework for deciding whether the contamination is causing an "unacceptable risk" to each of these EPA fish sampling identified mercury, dieldrin, receptors. Table 2 lists the receptor groups and the PCBs, and dioxin as contaminants of concern in the associated risk questions. fish. EPA has concluded that mercury detected in fish near the Site is most likely attributable to a EPA then performed a "Weight of Evidence" State-wide problem of mercury contamination in all evaluation to form an opinion regarding the potential Maine inland waters, and is not associated with past risk to each receptor group. For the Eastland Woolen contamination at the Eastland Woolen Mill Site. Mill, the overall risk assessment of the data across the While the dieldrin that was detected in fish tissue is multiple lines of evidence at the Site suggests that the likely to be Site related, there is no evidence to contamination from the Site is not having a significant suggest that the low levels of dioxin and PCBs also impact on the biological integrity of the area within found in the fish tissue were Site related. EPA Operable Unit n, and therefore is not posing a recommends that those considering the consumption significant ecological risk . The results of the of fish in the OU n area refer to, and comply with, evaluation by receptor group reveal that: the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Open Water Fishing Regulations. For 4 The assessment of risk supported a finding of no details about the statewide fish consumption advisory unacceptable risk to the following receptors: the please go to: http://www.maine.gov/dhs/ehu/fish/. avian herbivores (mallards); mammalian and avian The advisory applies to all warm water fish species omnivores (heron, raccoons); mammalian and in Maine inland waters due to mercury avian carnivores (fox, owl); avian piscivores contamination. (kingfisher, osprey); and fish (demersal and pelagic). Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment ^ The assessment of risk suggested a potential for low In addition to the evaluation of whether there is a risk level risk to the population, but well below levels to human health from contamination released from that would be considered an "unacceptable risk" to the Site, EPA also considers the potential impacts to populations for the following receptors: mammalian ecological receptors. EPA's goal in protecting the piscivores (mink); mammalian herbivores (voles); ecological receptors is to address contamination that and avian vermivores (woodcock) . The majority threatens the biological integrity of the area. Absent of the risk to the mammalian piscivore (mink) and the presence of threatened or endangered species, the mammalian herbivore (vole) was from exposure to cleanup decision is based on the magnitude of the aluminum, which is not believed to be a Site risk from the contamination on the biological contaminant. community, rather than on the potential risk or impact to a particular individual organism. It is * Th overale l Weight of Evidence risk assessment, therefore, crucial to focus on the Site-specific data which relied most heavily on the field studies, and circumstances when evaluating the need for a showed no unacceptable impact to the plant cleanup. community, terrestrial invertebrate community, or aquatic macroinvertebrate community. The EPA identified ten ecological receptors at the Site risk assessment for these receptors was more that should be evaluated for ecological risk. These complex because several of the lines of evidence receptors also serve as surrogates for other possible were in conflict. The laboratory toxicity tests of receptors that may reside in the area. EPA then sediment and floodplain soil indicated a risk and a developed a risk assessment question and risk strong likelihood for adverse impacts to these I co CO

^ o o I fc z 1

1 •3 o (i, 2 e£

O -s

o a s

f"o^ • Sp4 o o t s

§ '

.3 co >« w e 3w 3 II II <, ^5

O. 3

8 Population s communities. However, these lab results were not estimated given the spacial variability of the substantiated in a 2-year field study specifically contaminants. In addition, the toxicity designed to evaluate whether impacts were reference values used to estimate the risk were occurring in the field. The plant community in considered to be very conservative. The areas of contamination were not found to be uncertainty analysis for this receptor indicated different from areas that were not contaminated. that there was a strong likelihood that the risk The number of earthworms were not found to be is substantially overestimated. As a result, different at contaminated versus non-contaminated while the answer to the risk question in Table areas. Likewise, the benthic aquatic 2 was "yes", the overall conclusion was that the macroinvertebrate community was not found to be magnitude of the impacts to this receptor are different and was of similar quality in not considered to be an "unacceptable" risk. contaminated versus uncontaminated areas. The annual drawdown of the East Branch of the In summary, while there is contamination from the Sebasticook River, which drains water from the Eastland Woolen Mill present in the floodplain soil lower section of the river, appears to have the most and sediments of the OU n areas, the ecological significant impact on the aquatic macroinvertebrate risk assessment concluded that impact of this community. contamination is not causing a loss of ecological function or biological integrity. Additionally, some 4 The assessment of risk supported a finding that adverse impacts are potentially attributable to other some risk is possible to the mammalian factors, such as the annual drawdown of vermivore (shrew). The mammalian vermivore Sebasticook Lake. was the only receptor whose line of evidence analysis revealed a potential for population Based upon the results of the RI Report, impacts as evidenced by the "yes" response to Supplemental RI Report and the Revised Baseline the risk question posed on Table 2. Although Ecological Risk Assessment, EPA has concluded aluminum (not a Site contaminant) was a that there are no unacceptable risks to the significant contributing factor to the potential environment associated with the Site within the OU impact to the shrew, dieldrin was responsible narea. for the majority of the potential impact. To decide whether an "unacceptable risk" was Why Does EPA Recommend the Cleanup Action present for this receptor, EPA 1995 Superfund described in this Proposed Plan? guidance suggests that the evaluation consider: EPA believes the scientific information collected as t magnitude of the effect and the level of part of the RI supports a finding of No biological organization affected Unacceptable Risk to Human Health and the t likelihood that an effect will occur or Environment. As a result of this finding, EPA has continue to occur not developed a Feasibility Study for OU n to * ecological relationship of site to identify and evaluate potential cleanup alternatives surrounding habitats and no further action will be taken with respect to f sensitivity of the site-affected habitat the OU n area. 4 recovery potential from an effect, and chemical persistence This decision does not preclude the State of Maine 4 short and long-term ecological effect of the from initiating action under applicable state remedy regulations if violations of state law are occurring within the OU n area. 4 The mammalian vermivore (shrew) is expected to have a high potential for recovery due to its high reproductive capacity, and there is a good chance that the potential risks are over How You Can Comment On EPA's Proposed Plan and RI and is considered No Further Action Proposal? informational only. This meeting is scheduled for June 29*, 2004.

During the 30-day public comment period, from The second type of meeting, a public hearing, will th July 13* to August 12 2004, EPA will accept occur during the official comment period. At this formal written comments and hold a public hearing meeting, EPA will provide a brief summary of the on August 10*. EPA uses this public input to No Further Action proposal, and then the floor will improve the cleanup proposal. Your formal input be open for spoken comments. A stenographer will and ideas will become part of the official public be present to record all of the comments offered record. The transcript of comments and EPA's during this comment session. Comments made written responses will be issued in a document must be limited in duration in order to allow all called a Responsiveness Summary when EPA individuals present to have an opportunity to speak releases the final cleanup decision. Once complete, their comments into the record. EPA does not the Responsiveness Summary will be available at respond to any of the comments made at the the Stewart Public Library for review. meeting other than to indicate the time limits or request clarification. At the close of the formal There are three different ways in which individuals comment session, if time permits, EPA will be can express their comments on this Proposed Plan available to answer questions. This meeting is scheduled for August 10*. 2004. 4 Comments can be sent to the EPA RPM by email at: [email protected]. The comment period will last for 30 days. Once the comment period is complete, EPA will assemble f Comments can be spoken into the official and evaluate all of the submitted comments. public record during the public hearing that Appropriate revisions to the Proposed Plan will be will occur during the comment period. made based on these comments. EPA will then sign the Record of Decision describing the chosen 4 Comments can be submitted in writing to EPA. cleanup plan. The ROD and a summary of responses to public comments will be made Edward Hathaway, RPM U.S. EPA New England available to the public at the Stewart Public 1 Congress Street Library and through EPA Records Center in Suite 1100 (HBT) Boston. Boston, MA 02114-2023 For More Information about the Cleanup: EPA encourages anyone with a concern or who favors the No Further Action proposal to express All of the technical and public information their opinion during the comment period. All publications prepared to date for the site are comments are welcome. Any of the three available for public review at the following mechanisms above are acceptable for providing locations: comments and all of the comments are given equal weight. EPA Records Center 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 Two types of public meetings will occur with Boston, MA 02114-2023 respect to the Proposed Plan. The first will be an (617)918-1453 informational meeting to explain the No Further Hours: 10:00 a.m.-noon, 2:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Action proposal and answer any questions that may arise. Comments that are made during this Stewart Public Library meeting will not be part of the "official record." 8 Levi Stewart Drive This meeting will focus on a discussion of the Corinna, Maine 04928 A copy of all of the major reports are also available contaminated air, water, or food because the at the Maine DEP offices in Augusta, Maine. Call substances are very slowly metabolized or (207) 287-7843 if you want to access the files at excreted. The substances are often accumulate in the Bureau of Remediation and Waste the body of living organisms. Management of the ME DEP. Biological Integrity; The ability to support and Next Steps: maintain balanced, integrated, functionality in the natural habitat of a given region. By the end of September 2004, EPA expects to have reviewed all comments and signed the Record Biota; The animal and plant life of a given region. of Decision (ROD) describing the chosen cleanup Some of these plants and animals might be sources plan. The ROD and a summary of responses to of food, clothing, or medicines for people or public comments will then be made available to the ecological receptors. public at the Stewart Public Library and through EPA Records Center in Boston. EPA will Chlorinated Benzene Compounds; Compounds announce the decision to the community through with chlorine molecules attached to a benzene ring. the local news media and a general mailing. Chlorobenzene, 1,2 dichlorobenzene, 1,3 dichlorobenzene, 1,4 dichlorobenzene, 1,2,3 If EPA selects the No Further Action approach that trichlorobenzene, and 1,2,4 trichlorobenzene were is recommended in this Proposed Plan, then any components of the "dye-aid" that was used to swell further monitoring or investigation of the OU n the wool fibers to accept the dye. area would be the responsibility of the State of Maine or some other stakeholder. EPA will Demersal; Fish living on or near the bottom and continue to be involved in the completion of the feeding on benthic organisms. cleanup action in downtown Corinna (OU I and Early Cleanup Action). Ecological Receptor; Ecological entity exposed to a stressor. A receptor for the risk assessment was Glossary either a particular species (owl, fox, mink, etc.) or a community of species (benthic invertebrates, Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Community; terrestrial invertebrates) which were evaluated in Refers to the bottom dwelling (benthic) and water the risk assessment. The selected species chosen column (pelagic) macroinvertebrates. The benthic may also represent other possible ecological macroinvertebrates includes crayfish, mussels, and receptors that exist in the area since a species by the insects, snails, worms, and other fauna that are species analysis would not be practical. often a substantial component of the food chain. Benthic macroinvertebrates may also live on Floodplain: The flat or nearly flat land along a submerged aquatic vegetation. Pelagic river or stream or in a tidal area that is covered by macroinvertebrates include zooplankton living in water during a flood. Floodplain soils may become the water column and other macroinvertebrates contaminated when material that was carried with living on submerged aquatic vegetation. the water and sediment is deposited during a flood Avian; This term in the Baseline Ecological Risk event. Assessment applies to the bird receptors. The Floodplain Soil Exposure Areas; Distinct areas of avian receptors were further separated into vermivore, herbivore, omnivore, and piscivore the floodplain that were identified for categories. characterization as a single area in the Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment. See Figure 3 for these areas. Bioaccumulants: Substances that increase in concentration in living organisms as they take in

10 Hervbivore: Animal whose diet is primarily of vegetation. Herbivorous mammals consume Sediments: Soil, sand, and minerals that are predominantly green succulent vegetation, seeds, deposited in the bottom of rivers, lakes, and the roots, bark, and fungi. Their diet may include oceans. These may be washed from land into some insects. water, usually after rain or may be the soil, sand, or minerals present in the natural river, lake, or ocean Macroinvertebrate: Macroinvertabrates are bottom small, but visible with the naked eye, animals without backbones (insects, worms, larvae, etc.). Sediment Exposure Areas; Distinct areas of the Water bodies have communities of aquatic floodplain that were identified for characterization macroinvertebrates. The species composition, as a single area in the Baseline Ecological Risk species diversity and abundance of the Assessment. See Figure 3 for these areas. macroinvertebrates in a given water body can provide valuable information on the relative health Terrestrial Macroinvertebrate Community; This and water quality of a waterway. refers to the various earthworms, spiders, insects found in the floodplain soil. Benthic Marcroin vertebrates: Macroinvertebrates that live on or near the bottom Vermivore: Animals whose diet is primarily or substrate of a stream. They are considered good earthworms. biological indicators as to the "health" of a stream due to the sensitivity or tolerance to withstand Weight of Evidence: A process of evaluating the degraded water quality. multiple lines of evidence and establishing which information should be more heavily considered (or Non-point source: Pollution (contaminants, "weighed") based upon a scientific scrutiny of the sediment, sewage) whose source is not well relevance, quality, and limitations associated with defined. Run-off from roads and agricultural fields that information. For example: the field surveys of are commonly considered non-point source. the benthic macroinvertebrate community were considered to carry more weight than the ex-situ Omnivore; Animal whose diet is non-specific and toxicity tests and comparison with literature values. may consume meat (including fish), insects, or As a result, the information from the field studies vegetation. were the primary basis for EPA's risk conclusion for the benthic macroinvertebrate community. Piscivore: Animal whose diet is primarily offish.

Pelagic; Refers to aquatic organisms (such as fish) living in the open water.

Public Health Assessment (PHA): An ATSDR document that examines hazardous substances, health outcomes, and community concerns at a hazardous waste site to determine whether people could be harmed from coming into contact with those substances. The PHA also lists actions that need to be taken to protect public health. The PHA for the Eastland Woolen Mill can be viewed at the website: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/region_l.html