Skip Maine state header navigation

State Search:

Agencies | Online Services | Help

Page Tools Page Tools Email page Map addresses En español En français English

DEP Remedy

The Only Long Term Solution

DEP Remedy

• Would remove all five landfills
• Eliminate long-term maintenance obligation
• Eliminate need to capture/treat groundwater in perpetuity
• Can be done in estimated 5-6 years, based on similar projects
• Cost is likely comparable to cost of leaving landfills in place, when future costs considered

Woodard and Curran Remedy

• Would leave 40 tons (80,000 lbs.) of mercury in four landfills.
• Would not reduce the long term risk of the site.
• Would need active maintenance and expenditure of money forever.

Court – Independent Penobscot River Study concluded:

• It is imperative that any significant ongoing sources of mercury to the lower Penobscot River from HoltraChem be stopped.
• Failure to do this will indefinitely postpone the recovery of the system.

Court- Study conclusions:

• The lower Penobscot River and upper Penobscot estuary is significantly contaminated with mercury.
• The pattern of mercury is higher at locations closer to the HoltraChem site. 
• This mercury pattern is consistent with HoltraChem being the major source of mercury to the river.

Court – Study Conclusions cont’d:

• Methyl mercury (dangerous form of mercury) concentrations are from high concentrations of total mercury.
• Remediation that reduces total mercury concentrations would improve the river situation.
• There is extensive harm to the river and the bay south of the plant site as a result of mercury contamination.

Mallinckrodt Landfill Deficiencies

• Landfills do not meet minimum criteria
• Lack native silts and clays beneath
• Close to Penobscot River and floodplain
• Within 1200’ of potable water supplies
• Close to proposed development area
• Abuts Southerly Stream
• Abuts wetlands
• Steep slopes on unstable soils
• Could not be sited here under minimally protective standards

Mallinckrodt Landfill Deficiencies cont’d

• No liners
• Waste periodically below water table
• Waste placed directly on bedrock
• No leachate collection
• Inadequate monitoring
• Landfill covers
• 27-30 years old; condition unknown
• Lack drainage layer
• Four have Hypalon or clay covers, not HDPE
• Likely damaged at time of installation
• Landfills currently contaminate groundwater

Landfill Waste Mercury Concentrations

• Landfill 1 has 300 times the clean up standard
• Landfill 2 has 160 times the clean up standard
• Landfill 4 has 160 times the clean up standard
• Landfill 3 and 5 contain similar waste

• Why does this matter?

Mallinckrodt’s own consultant, P.E. Lamreau Associates said the mercury would leach from sludges in the future once the original alkaline makeup of the sludge is exhausted by acid precipitation.

Schematic Drawing of Hazardous Waste Landfills

Schematic Drawing of Mallinckrodt Landfills

Map Showing MPS Exceedances

Landfill 1

• Within the floodplain of the Penobscot River
• Eroded, concern of slope failure in past
• 30% slope of landfill to river
• Unlined without leachate collection
• Inferior cap
• Exceeds media protection standards for numerous chemicals
• Proposed for removal under either alternative

Photo Showing Base of Landfill 1, April 1, 2010

Table of Exceedances of Media Protection Standards Associated with Landfill 1

Map Showing MPS Exceedances Near Landfill 1

Landfill 2

• Sits in Southerly Stream
• Waste in contact with groundwater
• Clay cap degraded with water infiltrating
• Unlined with no leachate collection
• Exceeds media protection standards, groundwater, sediment, and surface water

Photo Showing Landfill 2, April 1, 2010

Table of Exceedances of Media Protection Standards Associated With Landfill 2

Map Showing MPS Exceedances Near Landfill 2

Landfill 3

• Sits on bedrock
• Unlined with no leachate collection
• Waste may be in contact with groundwater
• Inferior cap
• Exceeds media protection standards for numerous chemicals

Landfill 4 

• Sits on bedrock
• Waste in contact with groundwater
• Unlined with no leachate collection
• Inferior cap
• Exceeds media protection standards for numerous chemicals

Landfill 5

• Sits on bedrock
• Waste may be in contact with groundwater
• Unlined with no leachate collection
• Inferior cap
• Evidence of leakage in groundwater

Table of Exceedances of Media Protection Standards Associated With Landfills 3, 4, & 5

Map Showing MPS Exceedances Near Landfills 3, 4, & 5

Mercury Emissions During Remediation

Map Showing Highest Annual Average Mercury Concentration

Mercury Emissions During Remediation

• Modeled by both DEP and Mallinckrodt
• Conservative assumptions
• DEP results evaluated by CDC
• No adverse offsite impacts predicted
• Dismantling 2003-2007 without adverse effect including removal of cell building
• No on-site treatment of soils/sludges needed

Mercury Emissions During Remediation cont’d

• Initial work at pilot scale with continuous monitoring
• Start work with smallest landfill (#2) as pilot
• Real-time onsite and offsite monitoring throughout project
• Special vapor control transportation by rail

Mercury Emissions Over Project Life

By comparison, mercury emissions averaged 3 – 4 lbs per day during Mallinckrodt plant operation

Exaggeration of Timeline for DEP Remedy

Truck Size

Woodard & Curran assumed using 28-ton trucks for its own preferred option.
Estimated cleanup in 5-6 years

Woodard & Curran assumed using 18-ton trucks for DEP Remedy
Estimated cleanup in 9-12 years

Use of smaller trucks artificially added 3 years to the DEP Remedy timeline

Truck Size

Woodard & Curran used 28-ton trucks in evaluating carbon footprint of its own preferred remedy
Larger Loads = Fewer Roundtrips
Lower Emissions

Woodard & Curran used 12-ton trucks in evaluating carbon footprint of DEP Remedy
Smaller Loads = More Roundtrips
Higher Emissions

Woodard & Curran Estimate of Planning & Design Timeline

• Includes 734 days for “Slurry Wall Design”
• Slurry wall has since been eliminated from W&C proposal
• Includes 661 days for study/design of “Soil Excavation & Treatment”
• Onsite treatment no longer necessary
• Includes 224 day period for “Soil Transport and Treatment Work Plan”
• Onsite treatment will not be performed

Future Cost of Site Maintenance

Life Cycle Cost Analysis

Initial Cost of DEP Remedy greater than W&C Remedy

Add in Future Lanfdfill Cap Replacements

Add in Future Groundwater Treatment Plant Replacements

Add in Future Groundwater Collection & Treatment

Add in Future Groundwater Monitoring

Add in Future Landfill Maintenance & Reporting

Add in if Upper End of Cost Range is Used

Life Cycle Costs of W&C Remedy Could Exceed DEP Remedy

Rail Transportation of Mallinckrodt Wastes

Rail Transportation of Waste

• Direct rail route to Stablex
• Rail transport partway to Maine landfills possible
• Mercury emissions during transport controlled
• Decreased local truck traffic
• Decreased greenhouse gas emissions
• Enables higher rate of moving waste, shorter project timeline
• Used successfully at large projects similar to Mallinckrodt

Transportation Route to Stablex in Blainville, Quebec

(map from Kasper rebuttal testimony)

Photo Covered Intermodal Containers on “ABC” Rail Car

Stablex Facility

• Excellent Siting
• 150 Employees
• Mallinckrodt’s Choice for Dismantling Waste

Aerial Photo

Placement Cell Detail

Photo Backhoe Loaders

Stablex Mercury Treatment Basin with vapor recovery

Stablex- Mercury Vapor Collection System being installed on Waste Receiving Train Shed

Laboratory Results

Financial Risk

• Town has asked Mallinckrodt to Buy Contaminated Property
• Town has asked the BEP for Strongest Possible Financial Assurance Mechanism
• Mallinckrodt has asked the BEP to order the Town to Provide Access for all Remediation Activities (Mallinckrodt FOF, paragraph 33)

Summary

Is managing an immortal mercury waste:

• on exposed bedrock,
• in a stream,
• near the eroding banks of the Penobscot River,
• in the water table

the right place?