Exxon Fairmont Coke Works

Exxon Pre-Proposal Project Description

EXXON CORPORATION
PROJECT XL PROPOSAL
SHARON STEEL CORPORATION
- FAIRMONT COKE WORKS SUPERFUND SITE
FAIRMONT, WV

I. Introduction

Exxon Corporation is one of the worlds' largest energy and petrochemical companies. The company engages in all aspects of the oil and gas business, from exploration and production to refining and marketing. Exxon is also a leading worldwide producer of petrochemicals and has interests in coal and minerals mining operations and electric power generation. The company employs some 82,000 people in more than 100 countries on six continents.

It is Exxon's policy to conduct its business in a manner that is compatible with the balanced environmental and economic needs of the communities in which it operates. Exxon is committed to continuous efforts to improve environmental performance throughout its activities. During the 1990's, we have dedicated considerable efforts and resources to the worldwide implementation of our Operations Integrity Management System (OIMS) and other programs focused on improving our environmental, health and safety performance. The results show that we're meeting that objective:

Exxon's safety record ranks among the best of the best, with lost-time incidents 60 percent lower since 1989;

Our publicly reportable U.S. emissions of chemicals designated by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) have declined over 50 percent since 1987;

We voluntarily reduced by 50 percent our U.S. emissions of 17 high-priority chemicals designated by EPA's 33/50 program two years ahead of schedule;

Our chemical operations have cut emissions of volatile organic compounds over 50 percent worldwide since 1990;

Since 1990, our major U.S. operations have reduced day-to-day hazardous waste disposal over 80 percent, and our worldwide chemical operations have achieved a 75 percent reduction; and

Our refineries and chemical plants worldwide are over 35 percent more energy efficient today than in 1973, saving the equivalent of a billion barrels of oil - more than the annual oil consumption of most individual countries in the world.

Exxon has a long history in the type of stakeholder processes and superior environmental performance programs that underlie the XL concept. In addition to participating in various governmental advisory groups around the world, we work hard to establish cooperative relationships with the many communities in which we operate and with environmental organizations. Exxon encourages its employees to become active in community programs, often supporting their efforts with financial grants. Recycling programs, involvement in local emergency response teams, health care clinics, and home safety training are just a few of the many activities Exxon volunteers pursue. Exxon sends employee teams to visit primary and secondary schools to interest students and support teachers in science education, and have given summer jobs to promising students. In the U.S., teams of Exxon employees provide local science teachers with information and materials to help stimulate student interest in science. Many Exxon sites annually hold an open house for the public. Neighbors can visit the workplace and talk with our employees.

As citizen awareness continues to rise, community interests have become increasingly important to Exxon. From the onset of a project, we involve local residents and community leaders. For example, at our multi-billion dollar La Barge Gas Processing Facility in southwestern Wyoming, Exxon utilized a stakeholder process, unprecedented at the time, that involved not just local, State and Federal government, and statewide and national environmental organizations, but nearly the entire population of the host community. The holistic nature of the environmental planning for this project, which considered both a full range of regulated and non-regulated environmental issues as well as the socioeconomic effects of the project, provides part of the extensive experience that Exxon has brought to bear on the proposed Sharon Steel Corporation - Fairmont Coke Works Superfund Site XL Project.

This Project will be managed by the Exxon Company, U.S.A. Site Remediation organization. Headquartered in New Jersey, this organization manages 14 site remediation projects in the U.S. Together, they bring a wealth of experience to the Fairmont XL Project. Additionally, Exxon utilizes several research and technology organizations that provide state-of-the-art support to Exxon affiliates world-wide. Exxon Research and Engineering Co. and Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc. staff are actively advancing site remediation technologies in the areas of characterization, risk assessment, analytical chemistry and quality assurance methods, and remedial options. These resources are available to support the Fairmont XL Project.

Exxon has significant experience in the communications associated with environmental matters and stakeholder processes, will conduct a highly effective communications program throughout this project, and will share its experience with others to facilitate improvements in industry performance. Exxon is a proponent of programs in regulatory flexibility which could lead to more cost-effective selection of risk management options with environmental benefits for the community.

II. Fairmont Coke Works Superfund Site

The Sharon Steel Corporation - Fairmont Coke Works Superfund Site (Site) is located in Fairmont, Marion County, West Virginia. As illustrated in Figure 1, Fairmont, WV sits along the I-79 industrial corridor, approximately 20 miles south of Morgantown, WV and 20 miles north of Clarksburg, WV.

The original 44.6 acres of the current Site was purchased by Domestic Coke Corporation (Domestic Coke) in 1918. Domestic Coke was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Standard Oil of New Jersey, the corporate predecessor to Exxon Corporation. The land was conveyed by Domestic Coke the day after purchase to the U.S. Ordnance Department " . . . for the construction and/or operation of a sixty oven by-product coke plant for the making of toluol and other products." The Fairmont Coke Works (Coke Plant) was built by the U.S. Department of War during 1918-1920. The land with improvements was then reconveyed to Domestic Coke in 1920. As illustrated in Figure 2, Domestic Coke made other miscellaneous land purchases from 1919-1929 to bring the total acreage of the Coke Plant to approximately 103 acres; all process units are located within an approximately 50 acre parcel within the center of the site. Domestic Coke operated the Coke Plant from 1920 to 1948.

Sharon Steel Corporation (Sharon Steel) purchased the property, Coke Plant and business from Domestic Coke in 1948. Sharon Steel operated the Coke Plant from 1948 to 1979. The Coke Plant was closed in 1979 following Sharon Steel's reported failure to comply with Clear Air Act / Clean Water Act regulations. Sharon Steel was liquidated under jurisdiction of bankruptcy court in 1991. As part of the liquidation, FAC, Inc., a subsidiary of Sharon Specialty Steel Corporation, became and remains the owner of record. Exxon has executed a Sales Agreement with FAC, Inc. to purchase the site; the transition will be completed in June 1998.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began evaluating the Site for inclusion on the National Priority List (NPL) in 1987. The Site was listed on the NPL on December 23, 1996. EPA then began the process of looking for potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to perform various investigation and remediation tasks at this Site. Because of Sharon Steel's bankruptcy and Exxon's prior ownership, Exxon signed a Comprehen Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with EPA to conduct a Remedial Investigation / Feasibility Study (RI/FS), and Risk Assessment for the Site in September, 1997. Currently, Exxon is the only PRP with an AOC for this Site.

The Fairmont Coke Works is currently inactive; the Site was abandoned by Sharon Steel in 1979. Approximately 50 acres of the Site were used for coke plant operations. The rest of the Site consists of a wooded hillside which descends to the Monongahela River. The Site is one of the few large areas of flat, developable industrial land along I-79 in West Virginia.

III. Project Description

Exxon proposes an alternative, streamlined, cost-effective strategy for the investigation, risk assessment, remedy selection and remediation of the Sharon Steel Corporation - Fairmont Coke Works Superfund Site in Fairmont, WV. Implemented through Project XL, this strategy will result in a faster cleanup at this Site, and will more quickly return a large, flat, developable site to productive use, and provide economic growth to the Fairmont area. This Project will also achieve regulatory objectives using sound science and risk-based management, employing alternative approaches to Superfund that will ultimately meet the intent of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) and CERCLA. Key elements within this Project XL proposal are the introduction of more cost-effective flexibility to the Superfund administrative process while achieving superior environmental performance through stakeholder involvement. The Fairmont XL Project would be a pilot program for Exxon, the EPA and West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) to demonstrate concepts in the Superfund program that are currently being considered, developed, and/or implemented in other regulatory programs and jurisdictions. Once established, these demonstrated alternatives can be transferable, under certain circumstances, to other Superfund sites.

Stakeholder involvement is essential to the implementation of this innovative regulatory program. Therefore, Exxon has engaged and will continue to involve a wide range of stakeholders. Potential direct participant stakeholders include: local environmental activists; educators; health care providers; emergency responders; local college students; homemakers and community volunteers; an agriculture representative; a small business owner; a senior citizen; a member of the clergy; a non-professional/hourly worker; a local elected official; a city representative; and the EPA and WVDEP regulatory agencies.

While retaining the time tables and schedules in the existing AOC between Exxon and the EPA as an enforceable commitment, the AOC would be revised to replace the more burdensome administrative requirements and guidelines with a streamlined approach. This approach will achieve superior environmental results, greater economic opportunity, and community benefit through a faster and better cleanup process. Avoiding the usual legal and administrative delays associated with Superfund will allow Exxon, the EPA and WVDEP to conduct a cleanup program that meets the intent of the NCP and CERCLA while generating superior environmental performance through a program developed by stakeholders. As part of the proposed comprehensive approach to manage potential site risks, other programs which may be applicable at Superfund sites (e.g., Natural Resources Management, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, WV Groundwater Protection Act and associated regulations, and City of Fairmont Waste Management ordinances) will be integrated into the Fairmont XL Project.

IV. Project Selection Criteria

The Fairmont XL Project meets the eight XL criteria for project selection. The relationship of the Project to each of the XL criteria is discussed in detail in the following sections:

1. Superior Environmental Performance

This Project can become a model for addressing other Superfund projects across the nation. For the Fairmont XL Project, superior environmental performance is proposed to be created in two distinct ways:

through quicker and better cleanup; and

with genuine stakeholder involvement.

The first environmental improvement, quicker and better cleanup, will be achieved through the reduction in potential human and ecological risk associated with potential exposure to the Site. The approach would include quantifying the existing (i.e., baseline) human health and ecological risk to potentially exposed populations from the contaminants of concern at the Site. If this risk-based assessment determines that a potentially unacceptable level of risk exists, Exxon would work with EPA and WVDEP to quickly define and implement appropriate risk reduction and/or remediation options for the Site. The average length of time to complete (i.e., remediate) a typical Superfund project is 8 to 10 years. The XL process outlined here is expected to be completed in 3 to 4 years. The faster cleanup means a quantifiable reduction in any existing potential risk and an earlier return of land to beneficial re-use. It should be noted that the ultimate decision for the type of remediation to be performed at the site will be made by EPA in compliance with the NCP.

The second environmental improvement, genuine stakeholder involvement, will be achieved through Exxon's stakeholder outreach program, as outlined below. Coupled with the agency's commitment to work creatively with Exxon to avoid the legal and administrative delays often associated with Superfund projects, Exxon will commit to an earnest effort to achieve genuine stakeholder involvement with the goal of establishing greater public participation and endorsement of chosen remedies and related improvements.

2. Stakeholder Involvement

Stakeholder involvement is considered essential for the success of this Project. On November 12, 1997, Exxon presented the proposed Fairmont XL Project concept to EPA Region III and Headquarters personnel, including the Acting Deputy Regional Administrator of Region III, who indicated they would support development of the proposal. On January 28, 1998, Exxon presented an update on the development of the proposal, including the status of the stakeholder process already initiated by Exxon, to the same EPA Region III and Headquarters personnel, who again endorsed the proposal idea (with the understanding that Exxon would be specific in its written proposal about the type of regulatory flexibilities sought).

Exxon began formulating a stakeholder involvement process in December, 1997, to aid in development of the initial XL Proposal and for use in developing the Final Project Agreement (FPA). Exxon hired two West Virginia firms, Ann Green Communications, Inc., assisted by McCabe-Henley Properties, LP, to develop and facilitate the stakeholder involvement process for the Site. Exxon's stakeholder involvement process includes three elements:

(1) Conduct an Initial Community Assessment;
(2) Organize and implement the Direct Participant Stakeholder Panel; and
(3) Communicate with Commentors and the General Public as the Project progresses.

The three elements of Exxon's stakeholder involvement process are designed to support and complement the logical progression and stages of an XL project, as outlined by EPA in the April 23, 1997 Federal Register:

Pre-Proposal Stage;

Proposal Development Stage; and

Project Development Stage

During the XL Pre-Proposal Stage, the Initial Community Assessment (Element One) was conducted. The Direct Participant Stakeholder Panel (Element Two) is being established during the XL Proposal Development Stage, and will remain active through the XL Project Development Stage. Stakeholders will serve as an advisory body during EPA's review of this Proposal, and be available to provide feedback to EPA and Exxon. Stakeholders are the key component of the XL Project Development Stage, and their role will change from an advisory body to active and direct participants. The Direct Participant Stakeholder Panel will develop the FPA and strongly influence the details of the Project. The communication phase of Exxon's stakeholder involvement process (Element Three) will continue throughout the active project life.

The first element of Exxon's stakeholder involvement process is complete, and the second element is currently underway.

Initial Community Assessment

For the first element, the issues of concern and opinions held by people in the community, especially community leaders and near neighbors of the site, were identified through a series of community interviews. Interviews were conducted by Ann Green Communications, Inc. from January, 1998 through March, 1998. Fifteen community leaders and neighbors of the site were interviewed. The purpose of the interviews was to:

Identify key issues of concern pertaining to the idle Fairmont Coke Works;

Identify community needs;

Learn whether there are perceived environmental and/or health concerns related to the Site; and

Solicit nominations of individuals to be invited to participate in the Direct Participant Stakeholder Panel.

We believe the completion of this first phase of the stakeholder involvement process establishes that Exxon is committed to an open process of communicating with stakeholders and to gaining their input. A "Report on Community Interviews and Recommendations for Panel Membership", which includes the questions used in the interview process, a list of interviewees, and a summary of findings, is included in Appendix A.

Direct Participant Stakeholder Panel

The second element which is currently underway, involves developing a plan to reach stakeholders in the community, and setting that plan into action to develop the FPA. The basis for this plan is establishing the Direct Participant Stakeholder Panel. Using the interviews from the Initial Community Assessment as a preliminary stakeholder group, Exxon and the community are now considering the following issues in establishing this panel:

Composition of the Direct Participant Stakeholder Panel

Exxon proposes to use the XL model which uses a Direct Participant Stakeholder Panel to craft FPA elements while facilitating broad public comment for the Fairmont XL Project. The Panel will include at the least a cross-section of interests, including: community; business; environmental; and local government. The Panel should be formed in May;

Setting Ground Rules for the FPA Development Process

Previous XL projects have clearly established the importance of creating process ground rules that are mutually agreeable to the entire stakeholder group at the outset of the process. These rules will be listed and defined at the first meeting of the Panel;

Provision of Technical Assistance

For specific questions that cannot be answered by existing resources (e.g. Exxon, EPA), Exxon will fund the provision of technical experts. The procedure for determining how technical assistance will be provided will be developed by the Panel;

Establishment of a Process for Determining Consensus

While considered a ground rule, the process for determining consensus is sufficiently important to warrant a separate discussion here. Early discussion with stakeholders suggests that the project likely will follow the lead of other XL projects, where "consensus" is defined as the unanimous agreement of all categories (e.g., Exxon, EPA, direct participants) of stakeholders;

Structure, Meeting Schedule, Options and Logistics

All meetings of the Panel will be public. Exxon's facilitation consultant, Ann Green Communications, Inc., will handle meeting logistics and facilitate all meetings. Initial input suggests that meetings will be held in the evening to encourage citizen attendance. It is likely the work group model used in other XL projects may be appropriate here;

Processes for Developing Meeting Minutes

Minutes will be kept for each meeting of the full Panel. Minutes of work group sessions will be kept only where necessary to report specific actions or conclusions. All fall Panel meeting minutes will be published.

Once the Direct Participant Stakeholder Panel has been established and the XL Proposal has been accepted, development of the FPA will begin. Building on past XL projects, the Fairmont XL Project will use a four phase model to develop the FPA. This process is designed to facilitate understanding by the stakeholders and provides the opportunity for the public and stakeholders to craft the FPA incrementally, seeing its formation clearly over the four phases.

Phase One: Develop FPA Concepts

The first phase will be to review and develop with the Panel the essential concepts that will underlie the FPA.

Phase Two: Creation of the FPA Elements

Once the basic concepts are established, the process will move, most likely through a work group structure, toward development of individual FPA elements. Each element will be crafted separately before being tied together in Phase Three.

Phase Three: Assembling the FPA

Phase Three is the assembling of all the individual elements of the FPA to create the first rough draft of the full FPA. This allows the Panel, and the public, to view the project elements as an entire package but before the boiler plate and other non-substantive pieces of the FPA are added.

Phase Four: Preparing the Draft FPA

While a draft of the FPA is assembled in Phase Three, it is still in very rough form and is designed primarily to allow stakeholders to view the elements as an entire package. In Phase Four, a complete FPA draft will be developed.

Project Communication

Exxon recognizes the importance of broad public comment in the XL process. Therefore, the third element of Exxon's stakeholder involvement process includes the process of engaging and communicating to Commentors and the General Public about the Project as it progresses. This includes distributing notices and summaries of meetings with the community liaison panel, releases to the media, etc. Several proven and effective tools that we propose to use include periodic updates issued via the Internet and/or local press releases that will recap activities at the Site and the progress of direct stakeholder meetings.

Exxon believes this stakeholder process will result in a project that accurately addresses the needs identified by the community, stakeholder satisfaction with the process, and a better project than if developed by one group alone.

3. Regulatory Flexibility

This Project will result in superior environmental performance through quicker and better cleanup and will generate cost savings for EPA, WVDEP, and Exxon. Additionally, it is expected to generate significant economic opportunity for the City of Fairmont, Marion County, and the State of West Virginia; and a decrease in the paperwork burden of all parties. To achieve these results, Exxon is seeking regulatory flexibility from EPA and WVDEP regulations, guidelines and policy which address investigation, risk assessment, remedy selection, and remediation of Superfund sites. These regulatory flexibilities were presented to and discussed with EPA Region III technical staff, EPA Headquarters personnel, and WVDEP on February 11, 1998 as part of Exxon's pre-proposal outreach activities.

Specifically, Exxon requests regulatory flexibility from the requirements listed below. To facilitate review, each "element" or requested flexibility is listed separately along with our understanding of the current Superfund approach, and the requested regulatory flexibility under XL, plus a qualitative statement of the superior environmental benefits as we envision them at this time.
FAIRMONT XL PROJECT
DESIRED REGULATORY FLEXIBILITIES
Remedial Investigation

ELEMENT SUPERFUND APPROACH XL PROPOSAL BENEFITS

Data Collection / Program Focus Fully delineate the extent of contamination regardless of risk. Delineate the extent of contamination based on a conservative 1 X 10-6 risk criteria. Reduces cost and time for data collection and subsequent agency review.

Consideration of Background Background is considered to be zero contamination unless determined on a site by site basis. Recognize elevated background levels may be natural to coal mining area. Handle evaluation in statistical manner. Addresses contamination from activities at the site.

Sampling Design All sampling conducted at once; phased sampling approach may be used on an exception basis. Phased sampling to allow iterative and innovative approaches (without formal EPA review) which support refinement of risk analysis. Allows a targeted decrease in uncertainty and time during data collection process and a faster cleanup.

Off-site Considerations Past, present and future impacts and current risks must be addressed even if not realistic. Address present impacts and current risks Places focus on current risks (which will be addressed) and not hypothetical future land uses.

Site Segmentation Separate the Site into Operable Units (OUs) and address each OU separately. Treat Site as a whole; only separate Site as appropriate based on data. Decreases EPA, WVDEP and Exxon administrative cost, and allows better integration of risk reduction and/or remediation options.

Quality Assurance Validate all data. Conduct Usability Assessment on all data. Reduces cost of Quality Assurance program while targeting value of data collected to site decisions.

FAIRMONT XL PROJECT
DESIRED REGULATORY FLEXIBILITIES
Risk Assessment

ELEMENT SUPERFUND APPROACH XL PROPOSAL BENEFIT

Level of Significant Risk Remediation generally required when risk level exceeds 1.0 x 10-6, unless negotiate to 1.0 x 10-4. Default to 1.0 x 10-4 as trigger for risk reduction or remediation; use 1.0 x 10-6 as trigger for screening and delineation only. Targets investment to controlling unacceptable risks; results in quicker cleanup due to decrease in negotiation time.

Toxicity and Exposure Data Source Only data in IRIS or Superfund Guidance can be used even if not most appropriate for Site. Allow use of alternative published data, the source of which is subject to review and approval by EPA. Ensures data applied to decision is most current appropriate data for Site.

ARARs Rely on generic ARARs even if no reduction in risk or benefit to community. Rely on relevant data and risk assessment-based criteria specific to the Site. Use of best scientific information will provide a more certain analysis.

Risk Reduction Focus on removal, and not risk reduction or exposure control. Could shift risks during transport and ultimate disposal of wastes. Focus on risk reduction and exposure control. Targets investment to risk control and not chemical removal and shifting of risk.

Model Selection and Parameterization Rely on standard, default models and parameters. Allow use of most relevant model and parameters for Site conditions. Use of best scientific information will provide a more certain analysis.

Receptor Selection Based on theoretical sensitive populations; includes residential scenario as a possibility even if not realistic. Calculate only realistic projected land use scenarios based on owner and community input, and zoning/deed restrictions. Prevent over-investment to control unrealistic risks.

FAIRMONT XL PROJECT
DESIRED REGULATORY FLEXIBILITIES
Risk Assessment

ELEMENT SUPERFUND APPROACH XL PROPOSAL BENEFITS

Ecological Risk Assessment Focus on protection of individual ecological receptors and not communities. Address protection of ecological receptors by focusing on current relevant populations, communities and habitats. Analysis would focus on high level of ecosystem integrity.

Bioavailability Risk Assessment Assumptions Default assumption typically assumes 100% bioavailability. Develop site-specific bioavailability data as needed. Use of best scientific information will provide a more certain analysis.

Point Source Concentration Assumptions Utilize current analytical values over entire exposure period even if values will change over time. Integrate average concentration over exposure period based on intrinsic degradation. Provides more accurate estimate of site specific potential exposure and risk.

FAIRMONT XL PROJECT
DESIRED REGULATORY FLEXIBILITIES
Feasibility Study

ELEMENT SUPERFUND APPROACH XL PROPOSAL BENEFIT

Remedy Identification and Selection May require treatability testing of some remedies before implementation. Flexibility to focus on proven remedies early and implement without feasibility studies, testing, and reports. Earlier reduction in risk and decreased overall costs. Faster return of property to beneficial use.

Remedy Evaluation Evaluate all possible remedies. Screen only appropriate and cost-effective remedies, with input from EPA and WVDEP. Ensures applicability and cost-effectiveness of selected options.

Type of Remedial Solutions Statutory preference for permanent solutions (treatment or
removal). Allow engineering or institutional controls to control contamination without shifting risk (removal). Increased flexibility to find adequate solutions. Faster cleanup time.

ARAR selection EPA and WVDEP identify, EPA controls selection, and all apply (regardless of whether they result in reduction risk or benefit to community). Exxon proposes relevant and appropriate ARARs or alternative targets. EPA (with WVDEP input) retains ultimate decision regarding what ARARs are relevant and appropriate. Provides continuity with risk assessment and allows stakeholders a role in deciding the adequate level of risk reduction at the Site. Focus investment on reduction of risk.

Hot Spot Elimination Requires full characterization of Site before remediation can begin. Allow application of presumptive remedies for hot spot areas without need for further characterization. (Confirmation sampling will be performed.) Decreases risks earlier in process, achieving greater exposure reductions in a shorter time. Decreases cost of site characterization.

No Further Action (NFA) Declarations Typically not formalized prior to final remedy selection. Grant accelerated NFA for non-process area of the site (i.e., hillside) or narrow focus of investigation to process areas. Reduces focus of site assessment and demonstrates progress to community.

FAIRMONT XL PROJECT
DESIRED REGULATORY FLEXIBILITIES
Remedial Action
(Subject to RI Findings)

ELEMENT SUPERFUND APPROACH XL PROPOSAL BENEFITS

Groundwater Evaluate all available remedial technologies and usage scenarios (regardless of whether realistic). Evaluate only realistic usage scenarios, including attenuation, and natural treatment. Targets investment on realistic and most probable risks.

Soils Look at each sample and Operable Unit individually. Look at site-wide averages and risk; if needed, treat very high concentrations as hot spots. Targets investment on realistic and most probable risks.

Surface Water Evaluate impacts from all chemicals regardless of source; eliminate sources even if removal is necessary to do so. Focus on water management to eliminate or minimize flow; remediate conditions that are attributed to this Site. Targets investment on realistic and most probable risks.

Buried Waste Requires buried waste to be removed even if little risk. Addresses all risks of buried waste; reduces risk associated with transport by managing in place. Eliminates risk of handling during removal and transport; avoids shifting risk to alternate community (disposal Site).

Buildings Determine if onsite buildings pose an unacceptable risk due to release of hazardous substances -- select action accordingly. Up front management of onsite physical hazards using OSHA standards for workers by demolition and proper disposal of building materials. Early demolition of buildings increases the aesthetic value to community and decreases risk to Site workers and unintended site visitors.

Quality Assurance Requires full construction plan and protocols regardless of applicability. Use standard industry practices without site specific requirements. Reduces cost of QA without a loss of ability to track work progress.

Safety OSHA plus additional requirements. OSHA requirements only. Lowers cost without impacting worker safety.

In addition to relief from these Superfund requirements, regulatory relief may also be requested for other programs which may be applicable at Superfund sites (e.g., Natural Resources Management, Endangered Species Act regulations, Clean Water Act regulations, WV Groundwater Protection Act regulations, and City of Fairmont ordinances) to allow them to be integrated into the proposed streamlined approach to Superfund.

4. Feasibility

This Project is both environmentally and economically feasible. One unique aspect of this proposal is that it is based on a Site that is in the early stages of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process under Superfund. Because the RI for this Site has yet to be conducted, the opportunities for development of innovative, streamlined, cost-effective strategies for the investigation, risk assessment, remedy selection and remediation of the Site are optimized. Additionally, all planning work to satisfy the existing AOC has been accomplished considering the desired regulatory flexibilities in Section V.3 of this proposal to ensure feasibility under Project XL.

This proposal also has EPA (both Headquarters and Region III) and State (WVDEP) support. A broad cross section of EPA has been involved in pre-proposal scoping, including personnel from both Headquarters and Region III. EPA Headquarters personnel have included representatives from: Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation; Office of Site Remediation Enforcement; Office of Reinvention; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA Region III personnel involved include: Acting Deputy Regional Administrator; Acting Deputy Division Director; Remedial Branch Chief; Remedial Section Chief; Remedial Project Manager; Superfund Branch Chief, Office of Regional Council; and representatives from the Community Involvement Section, Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG), Office of Analytical Support and Quality Assurance (OASQA), and the Superfund Technical Support Section. WVDEP has been represented through the Office of Solid and Hazardous Waste. Exxon believes that obtaining early input from these diverse groups within the regulatory agencies will also ensure feasibility under Project XL.

Other factors that make this Project especially feasible are:

Progress of Exxon's involvement process, including upfront work to facilitate early establishment of the Direct Participant Stakeholder Panel;

Existence of only one PRP with an AOC for this Site;

Exxon's financial, technical, and public relations resources;

Exxon's pending ownership/site control (June, 1998);

Desire on Exxon's, EPA's, and stakeholders' part to make this work as a demonstration project;

Experienced and competent Exxon Team, including: ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. and Ann Green Communications, Inc.; and

The desires of the community to return the property to productive and beneficial economic use.

5. Transferability

The approach used for this Project can be transferred to other Superfund sites that are just beginning or are in the early stages of the RI/FS process. Several regions and states across the nation are already beginning to consider more streamlined approaches to remediation projects, and the Fairmont XL Project would be a valuable real-world demonstration for federal regions and states to consider.

The environmental results achieved would also be transferable to other Superfund sites. The desired regulatory flexibilities will lead to a streamlined administrative process and a faster cleanup time, which will result in a quantifiable reduction in any potential human and/or ecological risks and an earlier return of land to beneficial use.

6. Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation

The Final Project Agreement will include specific monitoring, reporting and evaluation criteria. Exxon recognizes that communication of information about the project to stakeholders is also an especially important component of an XL project. Through a series of community interviews (Appendix A), Exxon's communications consultant, Ann Green Communications, Inc., has concluded that the people of Fairmont generally read the Fairmont Times-West Virginia and/or the Morgantown Dominion-Post newspapers. WBOY-Clarksburg television station is said to provide good coverage of local issues. Civic groups can also provide a vehicle of communication and include two Rotary Clubs, several Lions Clubs, Kiwanis, Chamber of Commerce, and the Business and Professional Women's Association. These and other communications media, including the Internet, will be considered under Project XL to communicate information about the Project to stakeholders.

7. Shifting of Risk Burden

The Fairmont XL Project is consistent with Executive Order 12898. No disproportionate environmental burdens to any of the communities surrounding the Site will occur as a result of participation in Project XL. In fact, because the XL proposal will result in a streamlined remediation process and earlier return of the land to beneficial use, the project is guaranteed not to shift risk between media or potentially affected populations.

Through the stakeholder involvement process, Exxon is striving to develop a good working relationship with the community surrounding the Site. In addition to responding to community concerns, Exxon is committed to a high level of protection for employee and contractor safety. Exxon's long-standing concern for safety, as evidenced by the establishment of corporate safety programs in 1928, remains unchanged. Our Safety Policy recognizes the responsibility of every employee in the prevention of accidents, injuries, and occupational illnesses. Exxon's safety record ranks among the best of the best. In the United States, the petroleum industry's safety record is significantly better than that of the manufacturing industry as a whole, and Exxon ranks among the petroleum industry's top performers. As Exxon works with our contractors, we encourage them to adopt the best safety practices and standards. Average lost-time incident levels for contract workers on Exxon jobs worldwide have decreased to levels comparable to that of Exxon employees.

8. Innovative Multi-Media Approaches to Pollution Prevention

The Fairmont XL Project will test an innovative multi-media approach for the investigation, risk assessment, remedy selection, and remediation of the Site. The approach is innovative in that alternative approaches to Superfund, as outlined in the stakeholder involvement and regulatory flexibilities sections, will be employed. This approach will ultimately meet the intent of the NCP and CERCLA. The approach is multi-media in that soil, groundwater, surface water and sediment will be addressed, as applicable, during all phases of the Project.

V. Administrative Order on Consent Critical Path

Exxon signed a CERCLA AOC with EPA to conduct a Remedial Investigation / Feasibility Study (RI/FS), and Risk Assessment for the Site in September, 1997. Under this AOC, Exxon committed to specific timeframes in which to submit an RI/FS Workplan. Based on the positive feedback from the XL pre-proposal scoping meetings discussed in Section IV.4. Project Selection Criteria -- Feasibility of this proposal, EPA has approved Exxon's request to submit a Workplan for only RI activities at this time. This RI Workplan was submitted to EPA Region III and WVDEP on March 31, 1998. As part of the RI Workplan, Exxon proposed a project schedule that included projected dates for submittal of the Risk Assessment and FS Workplans three months after EPA's approval of the RI Work Plan (based on an estimated EPA approval date of August 1, 1998, these Plans would be due in late October, 1998). Once approved by EPA, this schedule must be adhered to regardless of the status of the Project XL proposal. Therefore, Exxon has identified a project critical path of September 1, 1998 for a determination by EPA of acceptance or non-acceptance of this proposal under Project XL. This will allow Exxon, the EPA and WVDEP sufficient time to incorporate the desired regulatory flexibilities, outlined in Section IV.3. Project Selection Criteria -- Regulatory Flexibility of this proposal, into the prescribed project AOC schedule.

VI. Conclusion

Exxon believes that its proposal for an alternative, streamlined, cost-effective strategy for the investigation, risk assessment, remedy selection and remediation of the Site will meet EPA's goals for Project XL. The Project will result in superior environmental performance compared to that performed according to current Superfund regulations and guidelines, and at a substantially lower cost. Additionally, stakeholders will have a greater role in project development and implementation than traditionally practiced under Superfund.

ELEMENT	SUPERFUND APPROACH	XL PROPOSAL	BENEFITS
Data Collection / Program Focus	Fully delineate the extent of contamination regardless of risk.	Delineate the extent of contamination based on a conservative 1 X 10-6 risk criteria.	Reduces cost and time for data collection and subsequent agency review.
Consideration of Background	Background is considered to be zero contamination unless determined on a site by site basis.	Recognize elevated background levels may be natural to coal mining area. Handle evaluation in statistical manner.	Addresses contamination from activities at the site.
Sampling Design	All sampling conducted at once; phased sampling approach may be used on an exception basis.	Phased sampling to allow iterative and innovative approaches (without formal EPA review) which support refinement of risk analysis.	Allows a targeted decrease in uncertainty and time during data collection process and a faster cleanup.
Off-site Considerations	Past, present and future impacts and current risks must be addressed even if not realistic.	Address present impacts and current risks	Places focus on current risks (which will be addressed) and not hypothetical future land uses.
Site Segmentation	Separate the Site into Operable Units (OUs) and address each OU separately.	Treat Site as a whole; only separate Site as appropriate based on data.	Decreases EPA, WVDEP and Exxon administrative cost, and allows better integration of risk reduction and/or remediation options.
Quality Assurance	Validate all data.	Conduct Usability Assessment on all data.	Reduces cost of Quality Assurance program while targeting value of data collected to site decisions.

Exxon Fairmont Coke Works

Local Navigation