PB99-963102
EPA 541-R99-002
1999
EPA Superfund
Explanation of Significant Difference
for the Record of Decision:
NL Industries Site
Pedricktown, NJ
6/21/99
-------
-------
EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE
NL Industries Superfund Site
Pedricktown, Salem County, New Jersey
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this document, called an Explanation of
Significant Difference (ESD), is to provide an explanation of a
change the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has made to a portion of the remedy selected in the July 8, 1994
Record of Decision (ROD) for the NL Industries, Inc. Superfund
Site (Site). This ESD is issued pursuant to Section 117(c) of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA) 42 U.S.C. §9617(c) and
by Section 300.435 (c) (2) (i) of the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) 40 C.F.R.
§300.435(c) (2) (i) .
The Site is located on Pennsgrove-Pedricktown Road in
Pedricktown, Salem County, New Jersey. EPA is the lead agency
for the remediation of the Site, with the-New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) supporting EPA in the
remediation.
The ROD, which was issued by EPA, addresses the cleanup of
contaminated soil, stream sediment and groundwater at the Site.
This ESD pertains only to that portion of the remedy contained in
the ROD that addresses contaminated soil and sediment.
The ROD-specified remedy calls for the excavation of soil and
sediment containing lead at levels exceeding 500 parts per
million (ppm), on-site solidification/stabilization of those
soils determined to be hazardous, and disposal of all excavated
soil in a landfill to be constructed at the Site. However, as a
result of newly obtained information, EPA believes an alternative
involving the disposal of the excavated soil and sediment in a
landfill located off-site to be cost-effective, equally
protective, and more quickly implemented than disposal on-site.
Therefore, this ESD revises the ROD to provide for the off-site
disposal of all excavated soil and sediment.
Summary of Site History. Pont-amination Problems, and Selected
Remedy
The NL Industries, Inc. (NL) Superfund Site is an abandoned,
secondary lead smelting facility, situated on 44 acres of land on
Pennsgrove-Pedricktown Road, in Pedricktown, Oldmans Township,
New Jersey. The Delaware River, abandoned and active industrial
facilities, woodlands and residential areas are located in the
vicinity of the Site.
-------
In 1972, the facility began the operation of recycling lead from
spent automotive batteries and other lead-bearing materials The
batteries were drained of sulfuric acid, crushed and then
processed for lead recovery at the smelting facility. The
plastic arid rubber waste materials resulting from the battery
crushing operation and waste from the smelting process were
disposed of in an on-site landfill.
NL ceased smelting operations at the Site in 1982. In October
1982, NL entered into an Administrative Consent Order (AGO) with
NJDEP to conduct a remedial program to address the Site soil,
paved areas, surface water runoff, the landfill and groundwater
In December 1982, the Site was proposed for inclusion on the
National Priorities List.
In February 1983, the facility was sold to National Smelting of
New Jersey (NSNJ) and lead smelting operations recommenced.
NJDEP entered into an amended AGO with NSNJ, National Smelting
and Refining Company, Inc. (NSR), which was NSNJ's parent
company, and NL. The amended AGO clarified the environmental
responsibilities of NSNJ and NL. NSNJ ceased operations at the
site in January 1984, and filed for bankruptcy along with NSR in
March 1984.
In April 1986, NL entered into an Administrative Order on Consent
(AOC) with EPA, whereby NL assumed responsibility for conducting
a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the
Site, which EPA designated as Operable Unit One (OU1), with EPA
oversight. Recognizing the size and complexity of the Site, EPA
is addressing its remediation in phases, or operable units. OU1
addresses site-related contamination in various media such as
soil, stream sediment, surface water and groundwater. The OU1
RI/FS was completed in July 1993. Operable Unit Two (OU2)
addresses the on-site slag and lead oxide piles as well as
contaminated debris and surfaces. The OU2 Focused Feasibility
Study was completed in July 1991.
In September 1991, EPA issued the Operable Unit Two Record of
Decision (OU2 ROD), which selected a remedy for cleanup of on-
site slag and lead oxide piles as well as contaminated debris and
surfaces. In March 1992, EPA issued an BSD to permit additional
alternatives for remediation of the slag. These alternatives
included; off-site treatment with off-site disposal; and on-site
treatment with off-site disposal. At the same time, EPA ordered
a group of 31 Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) to perform
the remedy selected in the OU2 ROD. The OU2 remedy was completed
in September 1995 and included: on-site stabilization and off-
site disposal of slag piles; off-site recycling of lead oxide
piles and other lead-bearing waste; decontamination of buildings,
paved surfaces, equipment and debris; dismantling of buildings
with recycling of scrap metal; and off-site treatment and
disposal of standing water and wash water. •
-------
EPA also conducted a multi-phased Removal Action at the Site to
address several conditions that presented an imminent risk to
public health and the environment. EPA conducted Phase I of the
Removal Action in March and April 1989. Phase I consisted of
construction of a chain-link fence to enclose the former smelting
plant and spraying or encapsulation of the on-site slag piles
Encapsulation of the piles provided temporary protection from"
wind and rain erosion and contaminant migration. In November
1989, EPA began Phase II of the Removal Action. This phase
consisted of additional encapsulation of the slag piles, securing
the entrances of the contaminated buildings, and removal of over
40,000 pounds of the most toxic and reactive materials.
During March of 1991, EPA performed Phase III of the Removal
Action. Damages to the perimeter fence were repaired, a new
entrance gate was installed, and all on-site containers stored in
open areas were emptied and staged under existing covered areas
Sand/gravel berms were installed around these materials to deter
their release. During July of 1992, Phase IV of the Removal
Action reinforced the slag bin retaining walls which were in
danger of collapsing.
Phase V of the Removal Action, which began in the Fall of 1993,
resulted in. the removal of the most highly contaminated stream
sediment from the West Stream, which is located adjacent to the
Site and is believed to have been contaminated by runoff from the
Site. Excavated sediment has been disposed of off-site.
The OU1 RI was a comprehensive study which determined the nature
and extent of Site-related contamination. The RI revealed the
presence of contaminants, primarily lead and cadmium, in various
media at the Site. Lead was detected in Site soil at
concentrations as high as 12,700 parts per million (ppm). In
addition, lead was detected in sediment from the West Stream at
concentrations up to 23,700 ppm.
The OU1 RI also concluded that the Site is underlain by three
hydrogeologic units: the unconfined (water table) aquifer; the
first confined aquifer; and the second confined aquifer.
Groundwater sampling results indicated the presence of a
contaminant plume in the unconfined aquifer below the Site.
Groundwater from the unconfined aquifer contained lead and"
cadmium at concentrations as high as 4,400 part per billion (ppb)
and 997 ppb, respectively. These concentrations exceed the
applicable drinking water standards of 10 ppb and 4 ppb for lead
and cadmium, respectively. Furthermore, a localized area of
elevated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) was found in the
vicinity of two monitoring wells. VOCs detected include 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1- dichloroethylene,
tetrachloroethene and vinyl chloride.
-------
Lead, the primary contaminant of concern at the Site, is
classified as a probable human carcinogen. Furthermore, exposure
to lead can cause noncarcinogenic effects including alterations
in red blood cell production and the central nervous system.
High concentrations of lead in the blood can cause severe, '
irreversible brain damage and possible death. The Quantitative
Risk Assessment conducted for OU1 indicated that the hypothetical
long-term use of contaminated groundwater for potable purposes
would result in unacceptable carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic
risk to the receptors. Furthermore, a child living on-site would
be exposed to unacceptable risks due to ingestion of and dermal
contact with contaminated soil.
Potential risks to environmental receptors associated with the
Site were identified in an Ecological Risk Assessment. The
results of the Ecological Risk Assessment indicated that
significant risk at the Site existed for various species
including the robin, woodcock nestlings, red fox and mink, due to
exposure to sediment and soil containing lead at concentrations
greater than 500 ppm. Based upon these findings, EPA concluded
that a remedial action objective for lead in soil and stream
sediment of 500 ppm is adequately protective of ecological
receptors. Furthermore, the 500 ppm remedial action objective is
consistent with EPA OSWER Directive #9355.4-02 which recommends a
soil cleanup level of 500 to 1000 ppm for protection of human
health at residential sites.
On July 8, 1994, EPA issued the Operable Unit One Record of
Decision (OU1 ROD). The OU1 ROD called for: excavation of all
soil contaminated with lead above the remedial action objective
of_500 ppm, on-site treatment via solidification/stabilization of
soil classified as hazardous under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, and disposal of the treated soil along with non-
hazardous soil in a landfill to be constructed on the Site;
removal of contaminated stream sediments above 500 ppm of lead
from the East Stream and drainage channel north of Route 130 and
treatment/disposal of the sediment in a manner similar to that
described for soil; and extraction and treatment of contaminated
groundwater with direct discharge of the treated groundwater to
the Delaware River.
On June 10, 1996, EPA entered into an AOC with five PRPs that
provided for the design of the OU1 remedy. On January 13, 1997,
the above AOC was modified to provide for the PRPs' maintenance,
with repair or replacement if necessary, of silt fencing
installed along the West Stream. The' silt fencing has been
installed to minimize further migration of Site-related
contamination until the OU1 remedy is implemented.
-------
Upon entering into the AOC, the PRPs initiated OU1 remedial
design activities. These activities have included soil and
groundwater sampling to better define the extent of
contamination. In addition, groundwater capture zone modeling
will be conducted in order to ensure that the remedy will provide
for the complete capture of Site-related groundwater
contamination.
On January 28, 1998, EPA initiated negotiations with NL and four
PRPs who sent lead-bearing material to the Site for
implementation of the OU1 remedy and completion of Phase V of the
Removal Action initiated by EPA in the West Stream. Ultimately,
in June 1998, six PRPs signed a Consent Decree which memorialized
their agreement to undertake these actions. The Consent Decree
was entered as an order of the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey on April 1, 1999.
Description of the Significant Difference Between the July 1994
ROD and the Modified Remedy
The selected remedy, as presented in the OU1 ROD, addresses
contaminated soil, stream sediment and groundwater at the Site.
This BSD describes a change in the remedial approach for soil and
sediment only. The cleanup of contaminated groundwater will be
conducted as described in the July 1994 OU1 ROD.
Based upon the evaluation of alternatives conducted as part of
the OU1 FS prior to issuance of the OU1 ROD, EPA determined that
disposal of soil and sediment off-site was not as feasible as on-
site disposal. At that time, EPA concluded that off-site
disposal of the soil and sediment would not be cost-effective.
Cost estimates provided in the OU1 ROD for remedial alternatives
involving on-site and off-site treatment and disposal of soil and
sediment indicated that it would cost $9,359,850 more for off-
site treatment and disposal of soil and sediment. However, an
evaluation of disposal options conducted by the PRPs during
performance of the OU1 remedial design indicated that, due to the
elimination of solid waste flow control restrictions in New
Jersey, and the resulting increase in competition between Solid
Waste Disposal Facilities, the excavated soil and sediment can be
disposed of off-site at a cost that is competitive with on-site
disposal. On-site treatment with off-site disposal of the site-
related soil and sediment is currently estimated to cost $789,800
more than on-site treatment with on-site disposal, which
represents only a 4.2% increase in the estimated cost of the OU1
remedy. Furthermore, off-site disposal of the soil and sediment
can be implemented more quickly than on-site disposal. The time
to effectuate the off-site disposal remedy is estimated to be
between six to twelve months, while the on-site remedy may take
up to 18 months longer to implement, due to the requirement to
obtain all required state approvals for construction of the
landfill and the additional time necessary to construct the
-------
landfill. In addition, local ordinances concerning the setback
of the landfill from the property line may further complicate the
design of the on-site landfill. Finally, removing the soil and
sediment from the Site precludes the need for long-term
monitoring of an on-site landfill, which would be required for
the on-site disposal option.
Although the remedy selected in the OU1 ROD involving the on-site
disposal of excavated soil and sediment continues to be a
protective, cost-effective and implementable method of addressing
this media, EPA is issuing this BSD to notify the public that,
based upon information recently obtained by EPA, the excavation
of contaminated soil and sediment, on-site treatment through
solidification/stabilization of hazardous soil and sediment, and
off-site disposal of all excavated material is more appropriate
based upon comparable protectiveness and cost, and a shorter
implementation time.
SUPPORT AGENCY COMMENTS
NJDEP did not concur with the remedy selected in the GUI ROD.
NJDEP determined that, pursuant to State law, environmental use
restrictions would be required for the Site, unless soil was
cleaned up to the State of New Jersey's 100 ppm residential soil
cleanup criterion for lead. In addition, NJDEP believed that the
OU1 remedy did not address off-site soil appropriately, because
it did not provide for the cleanup of these soils to the 100 ppm
residential soil cleanup criterion.
Subsequent to issuance of the OU1 ROD, the State of New Jersey's
residential soil cleanup criterion for lead was revised from 100
ppm to 400 ppm. NJDEP has informed EPA that a Deed Notice is
required for the Site pursuant to the Brownfield and Contaminated
Site Remediation Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10B-1 (formerly the Hazardous
Site Discharge Contamination Act), if soil is not remediated to
the 400 ppm residential soil cleanup criterion for lead.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES
In accordance with the NCP, a formal public comment period is not
required when issuing an BSD. However, as required by CERCLA,
EPA published a notice of this BSD in Today's Sunbeam, a local
newspaper.
This BSD will be incorporated into the Administrative Record
maintained for the Site in accordance with Section 300.825(a)(2)
of the NCP. The Administrative Record is.available for review
during business hours at the Penns Grove Carney's Point Public
Library, 222 South Broad Street, Penns Grove, New Jersey 08069
and at EPA Region II, Superfund Record Center, 290 Broadway, 18th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
-------
AFFIRMATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
fcth ?h?hgS that ha^ been.made to the selected
* ob-iP<-i--iro fn-r-~~-\~~x "~"•""""*' J-ilv-J-u"J-"a "is 500 ppm cleanut
\ elective for lead remains protective of human health and
it. «««„„,, „„ „+*— residential or industrial future use
appropriate to
signed, and is
Jeanne
Regionai^dministf^ator
-------
A
-------
Reproduced by NTIS
o±
E5
a) >
"" *-.ti
0 fit _
EEuO
u CD 3+*
^iJ^S
ajS >c
0£.Eo
*
*
® C
3T3 C
^OJ
ZO.S2.E
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161
This report was printed specifically for your order
from nearly 3 million titles available in our collection.
For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for
each order. Documents that are not in electronic format are reproduced
from master archival copies and are the best possible reproductions
available. If you have any questions concerning this document or any
order you have placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Service
Department at (703) 605-6050.
About NTIS
NTIS collects scientific, technical, engineering, and business related
information — then organizes, maintains, and disseminates that
information in a variety of formats — from microfiche to online services.
The NTIS collection of nearly 3 million titles includes reports describing
research conducted or sponsored by federal agencies and their
contractors; statistical and business information; U.S. military
publications; multimedia/training products; computer software and
electronic databases developed by federal agencies; training tools; and
technical reports prepared by research organizations worldwide.
Approximately 100,000 new titles are added and indexed into the NTIS
collection annually.
For more information about NTIS products and services, call NTIS
at 1-800-553-NTIS (6847) or (703) 605-6000 and request the free
NTIS Products Catalog, PR-827LPG, or visit the NTIS Web site
http ://www.ntis.gov.
NTIS
Your indispensable resource for government-sponsored
information—U.S. and worldwide
-------
------- |