United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-93/206
September 1993
&EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Universal Oil Products
(Chemical Division), NJ
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-93/206
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Universal Oil Products (Chemical Division), NJ
First Remedial Action
5. Report Date
09/29/93
7. Author(s)
8. Performing Organization Rapt. No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10 Project Task/Work Unit No.
11. Corrtract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/800
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
PB94-963806
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The 75-acre Universal Oil Products (Chemical Division) site is a chemical processing
facility located in the Borough of East Rutherford, Bergen County, New Jersey. Land
use in the area is predominantly residential, commercial, and light industrial, with
wetlands in the form of undeveloped tidal marshes located on and near the site. A
shallow aquifer located in the vicinity of the site has never been developed for
potable water due to its low yield. Beginning 1932, Trubeck Laboratories operated the
facility and constructed an aroma laboratory. In 1955, the company began operating a
solvent recovery facility and handling waste chemicals, and constructed a wastewater
treatment plant, which utilized two wastewater treatment lagoons. In 1960, Universal
Oil acquired the facility and operated at the site until 1979. In 1971, the wastewater
treatment plant and the two lagoons ceased operations. In 1979, site operations
ceased, and, in 1980, all site structures were demolished. As a result of the release
of various hazardous substances into the soil and shallow ground water due to the
operation of wastewater lagoons and the routine handling of raw materials and wastes, a
number of State investigations revealed PCB-, PAH-, VOC-, and lead-contaminated soil
and VOC-contaminated leachate. This ROD addresses the interim remedial action for the
contaminated uplands soil and leachate at the site, as OU1. Future RODs will address
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Universal Oil Products (Chemical Division), NJ
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: soil, leachate
Key Contaminants: VOCs (1,1,2,2-TCE), other organics (PAHs, PCBs), metals (lead)
b. Identlflers/Open-Ended Terms
COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None .
21. No. of Pages
68
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-93/206
Universal Oil Products (Chemical Division), NJ
First Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
the two wastewater lagoons, as OU2, and the stream channels, as OU3. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and leachate are VOCs, including 1,1,2,2-TCE;
other organics, including PAHs and PCBs; and metals, including lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes placing a 2-foot deep soil cover over
4.9 acres and 6,800 yd3 of the PCB/PAH-contaminated soil; treating 16,000 yd3 of the
highly PCB/PAH-contaminated soil, with PCB levels greater than 25 mg/kg and total PAH
greater than 29 mg/kg, using thermal desorption with offsite destruction of vapor and
liquid-phase residuals; treating 7,000 yd3 of VOC-contaminated soil onsite using thermal
desorption; placing a 2-foot deep soil cover and an impermeable cap over 3.7 acres of
lead-contaminated soil; treating 5,600,000 gallons of VOC-contaminated leachate that
collects in the excavation onsite, with discharge to ground water; excavating leachate
collection pits and trenches; monitoring ground water; and implementing institutional
controls, including deed restrictions. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial
action is $9,600,000, which includes an estimated annual O&M cost of $1,025,200.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Soil and ground water cleanup goals are based on health-based criteria and State and EPA
guidance. Chemical-specific surface soil goals include benzo(a)anthracene 4 mg/kg;
benzo(b)fluoroethane 4 mg/kg; benzo(a)pyrene 0.66 mg/kg; benzo(k)fluoroethane 4 mg/kg;
chrysene 40 mg/kg; dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.66 mg/kg; indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 4 mg/kg; lead
600 mg/kg; PCBs 2 mg/kg; 1,1,2,2-TCE 21 mg/kg; VOCs (leachate) 10 mg/1; and VOCs (soil)
1, 000 mg/kg.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name:
Location/State:
EPA Region: II
HRS Score (date): 54.63
Universal Oil Products
East Rutherford, New Jersey
(8/4/82)
ROD
Date Signed:
Remedies:
September 30, 1993
Containment of lead contaminated soils, treatment of volatile organic (VOC),
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (RAH)
contaminated soils with thermal desorption, collection and treatment of leacheate.
Operating Unit Number: OU-1
Capital Costs:
Construction Completion:
OS. MinlMl:
O & M in tW4:
O & M in 1995:
O & M in 19»6:
Present Worth:
Thermal Desorption
& Soil Cover
of PCB/FAH
Contaminated Soils
S5.6M
10/97
0
0
0
0
S5.6M
ThermalDesorption
of VOC
Contaminated
Soils
S2M
1/97
0
0
0
0
S2M
Cap and Soil
Cover of Lead
Contaminated
Soils
$500.000
8/95
0
0
0
S2.600
$532,000
Leacheate
Collection
and
Treatment
$1 ,300.000
1/96
0
0
0
$36,000
51.420,000
TOTALS
S9.6M
0
0
0
S38.600
S9.6M
Lead: New Jersey State Enforcement Lead
Primary contact: Gwen Barunas (609) 633-1455
Secondary contact: Roman Luzicky (609) 633-1455
Main PRP(s): Allied Signal
PRP Contact: Mark Kamilow (201) 455-2119
WASTE
Type:
Medium:
Origin:
PCBs, PAHs, VOCs, Lead
Soils: PCBs, PAHs, and VOCs. Leacheate:VOCs
Chemical Processing Plant
Est. quantity: 5.6 million gallons of leacheate, 16,000 yd3 of PBC/PAH contaminated soil, 7,000 yd3 of
VOC contaminated soil, 3.7 acre area of lead contaminated soil.
-------
Declaration for the Record of Decision
Site Name and Location
Universal Oil Products (Chemical Division)
Borough of East Rutherford, Bergen County, New Jersey
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected interim remedial action for Operable Unit
One at the Universal Oil Products (UOP) site, in the Borough of East Rutherford, Bergen County,
which was chosen in accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. This decision document explains the factual
and legal basis for selecting the remedy for this site and is based on the information contained in
the administrative record for this site.
TheNJ. Department of Environmental Protection and Energy serves as the lead regulatory
agency at the UOP site. As the lead agency, the Department has directly overseen all activities
at the site.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) serves as the support agency at the
UOP site. The EPA concurs with the selected remedy.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
The response action described in this document represents an interim remedy for the first
of three planned operable units at the site. Operable Unit One consists of the uplands soils and
leachate at the site; Operable Unit Two includes the two wastewater lagoons; and Operable Unit
Three consists of the site stream channels (see Figure 1). The selected interim action will address
the threats due to contaminated soils and contaminated leachate, designated as Operable Unit One.
It addresses the principle threats through treatment of the most highly contaminated materials and
the lower level threats through containment. Since a portion of the selected remedy calls for the
containment of contaminated soils, the remedial action for Operable Unit One will require long-
term management.
-------
The major components of the selected remedy include the following:
For Polychlorinated Biphenyl/Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon-Contaminated Soils:
• On-site thermal desorption of highly contaminated soil (6800 cubic yards), and
placement of treated soils on site
• Soil cover for less contaminated soil (4.9 acres)
• Institutional controls
For Volatile Organic Compound-Contaminated Soils:
• On-site thermal desorption (7000 cubic yards), and placement of treated soils on
site
For Lead-Contaminated Soils:
• Soil cover/cap (3.7 acres)
• Institutional controls
For Volatile Organic Compound-Contaminated Leachate
• Leachate collection trenches and pits (5.6 million gallons)
• On-site treatment of leachate
• Discharge of treated effluent to ground water
Declaration of Statutory Determinations
The selected interim remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies
with Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action and is cost effective. In accordance with EPA "Guidance on Remedial Actions
for Superfund Sites with PCS Contamination," a waiver of the Toxic Substances Control Act
landfill requirements is being granted in this ROD for the UOP site. This remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment (or resource recovery) technologies to the maximum
extent practicable, and it satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that
reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element. Subsequent remedial actions are
planned to address fully the principal threats posed by other operable units at this site. Because
this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on site, a review will be conducted
within five years after commencement of the remedial action to ensure that the interim remedy
continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
Jeanne M. Fox, Acting Commissioner '
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy
_
William J. Mus^ski, PTE^^"" Date
Acting Region^Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region U
-------
Decision Summary for the Record of Decision
1. Site Name. Location, and Description
Universal Oil Products UOP is a 75 acre site located in the Borough of East
Rutherford, Bergen County, New Jersey. A portion of the site is located in the Hackensack
Meadowlands District, which is administered, in part, by the Hackensack Meadowlands
Development Commission. It is bounded on the north primarily by a compressed gas
facility, on the east by Berry's Creek, on the south by commercial properties, and on the
west by New Jersey Route 17 (See Figure 1).
The UOP property is flat (elevations vary from 4 to 9 ft above mean sea level) and
partly covered by tidal salt marsh. A system of natural and artificial surface-water channels
crosses the property. The property was developed as an industrial facility in 1932. The
property usage remained industrial until operations ceased in 1979.
The UOP property is surrounded by undeveloped tidal marshes, highways, and
commercial and light industrial properties. Immediately to the north is the Matheson Air
Products facility, a metal finishing facility, a truck and car repair shop, and a hotel. To the
east are Berry's Creek and tidal marshes. To the south are commercial properties. To the
west is New Jersey Route 17. West of Route 17 are a Becton Dickinson manufacturing
facility and commercial properties. The closest residential area is approximately one-half
mile to the west of Route 17.
The UOP site occupies part of the Berry's Creek drainage basin. An Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared for the adjacent New Jersey Sports and Exposition
Complex (Jack McCormick and Associates, 1978). That report described the various natural
resources found in the area of UOP. Many flora and fauna are found in the vicinity of the
UOP site including dense stands of common reed grass, other various wetlands plant species,
sixty-five kinds of birds, many mammals, one amphibian and three reptile species.
As stated above, the site is crossed by various man-made and natural channels,
commonly referred to as Ackerman's Creek, that drains to Berry's Creek, a tributary to the
Hackensack River. These surface water bodies are all tidally affected and have relatively
high salinity concentrations.
Wetlands exist on site. Also due to its location, the site is regularly subject to tidal
flooding.
Ground water at the site exists in two units. The upper unit consists of a layer of fill
on top of an organic layer called meadow mat. This unit at UOP is isolated horizontally by
the on-site surface water bodies and is generally brackish. Also, due to the nature of the
1
-------
fill material, aquifer yields are very low in this formation. For these reasons, the shallow
aquifer in the vicinity of the site has never been developed for potable use. A deeper
aquifer, located in the Brunswick formation, is separated from the shallow aquifer by
approximately 100 feet of varved clay. Due to the site's location in the Hackensack
Meadowlands, a regional discharge area, the vertical hydraulic gradient tends to be upward.
2. Site History and Enforcement Activities
The property was developed in 1932 by Trubeck Laboratories, which built an aroma
chemicals laboratory. Trubeck began operating a solvent recovery facility and handling
waste chemicals in 1955. In 1956 Trubeck constructed a wastewater treatment plant, and
in 1959 began utilizing two wastewater holding lagoons. UOP Inc. acquired the property
and facilities in 1960. Use of the waste treatment plant and wastewater lagoons ceased in
1971. All operations at the facility were terminated in 1979. In 1980 all structures, except
concrete slabs and a pipe bridge over the railroad tracks, were demolished. During the
years of operation, both the waste water lagoons and the routine handling of raw materials
and wastes resulted in the release of various hazardous substances to the soils and shallow
ground water.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy (NJDEPE) has
overseen activities at the UOP site since 1982 under various Administrative Consent Orders
(ACOs). The site was listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) on September 8, 1983.
Current site work is being performed under a May 23, 1986 AGO between NJDEPE and
UOP. Activities performed under this ACO have included the investigations of Operable
Unit One, the investigation of site stream channels (Operable Unit Three), and the removal
of the two wastewater lagoons (Operable Unit Two) in 1990.
3. Highlights of Community Participation
The Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Report and the Proposed
Plan for the UOP site were released to the public for comment on August 10,1992. These
documents were made available to the public in both the administrative record and an
information repository maintained at the NJDEPE offices in Trenton, NJ, the East
Rutherford Municipal Building and the East Rutherford Municipal Library. The notice of
availability for these documents was published in the Herald News on August 5, 1992. A
public comment period on the documents was held from August 10,1992 through September
8,1992 (30 calendar days). In addition, a public meeting was held on August 13,1992. At
this meeting, representatives from the NJDEPE answered questions about problems at the
site and the remedial alternatives under consideration. A response to the comments
received during this period is included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this
Record of Decision ROD. During the public comment period, the U.S. Environmental
-------
Protection Agency O(EPA) suggested that several changes be made to the proposed plan
that was issued on August 10,1992. Based on these comments, a second proposed plan was
released for public comment on May 3, 1993. A second public comment period was held
for the revised proposed plan from May 3, 1993 through June 1, 1993 (30 calendar days).
The notice for the second public comment period was placed in the Herald News on May
1, 1993. No public comments were received during the second public comment period.
4. Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action Within Site Strategy
As with many Superfund sites, the problems at the UOP site are complex. As a
result, NJDEPE has organized the remedial work into three operable units. This ROD
selects the first planned remedial action at the site, addressing Operable Unit One.
Operable Unit One consists of the uplands soils and leachate at the UOP site. The
response action described in this ROD is an interim action that addresses all known soil
contamination and leachate that serves as a source of ground water contamination. A final
action for ground water will be selected after completion of this interim remedial action.
A removal action was performed by the responsible parties with NJDEPE oversight in 1990
for Operable Unit Two that consisted of the excavation and off-site disposal of two waste
lagoons. Presently, a remedial investigation is being performed for Operable Unit Three,
the stream channels. Further remediation of the former waste lagoons, Operable Unit 2,
is contingent upon the remedy selected for Operable Unit 3, since part of these waste
lagoons adjoin the creek.
The remedial action selected in the Record of Decision addresses several principal
threats posed by the UOP site. These principal threats are Polychlorinated Biphenyl
(PCB)/PolycyclicAromaticHydrocarbon(PAH)-contaminatedsoils,lead-contaminated soils,
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)-contaminated soils, and VOC-contaminated leachate
(source areas of ground water contamination).
5. Summary of Site Characteristics
To facilitate investigations, the UOP site has been divided into six areas: Areas 1,
1A, 2, and 5 are the uplands area of the site; Area 3 is the former waste lagoons associated
with the waste water treatment plant; and Area 4 is the on-site stream channels (see Figure
1). The remedial investigation (RI) for the upland areas at the UOP site has been per-
formed in three phases. Phase I investigations were performed in 1984, and Phase II
investigations were performed in 1985. Phase I initially characterized contamination
distribution at the site. Investigations performed subsequent to Phase I built upon
information from previous phases and filled in any data gaps that existed. The results of the
first two phases are considered in the 1988 or Phase III RI report. The 1988 RI report
-------
serves as the main RI document. Remedial activities related to Areas 3 and 4 are being
performed separately due to their unique qualities including different geographical locations,
contaminants of concern, and physical characteristics (i.e., stream beds could not be investi-
gated/remediated in a manner similar to soils).
The remedial investigation of the uplands area included the installation of monitor wells and
taking soil samples. The locations of these wells and samples are shown on Figures 2 and
3. The remedial investigations made several conclusions concerning site conditions at Areas
1, 1A, 2 and 5:
1. Area 1, 1A and 2 samples indicate the presence of VOCs in the following concen-
trations. Area 1 sampling results indicated that total VOCs in ground water ranged from
Below Detection Limits (BDL) to 56 parts per million (ppm) and total VOCs in soil ranged
from BDL to 74.8 ppm. Area 1A results demonstrated higher levels of total VOCs with
ground water ranging from BDL to 66 ppm total VOCs and soil ranging from BDL to 1747
ppm. Area 2 had the highest total VOC levels with sampling indicating ground water levels
from BDL to 210 ppm and soil levels ranging from BDL to 2108 ppm (See Figures 4, 5 and
6).
2. Base/neutral and acid-extractable (BNA) compounds were detected in ground water.
These compounds were detected in areas also contaminated with VOCs. In general, these
compounds occur at much lower concentrations than the VOCs. The highest concentrations
were measured in Wells 131,211, and 271 at 21 ppm, 10 ppm and 14 ppm, respectively (See
Figure 3 for well locations).
3. Area 5 samples indicated that high levels of various base neutral compounds were
present in surface soils. In particular, carcinogenic PAHs were detected in Area 5 soils (see
Table 12 for list of carcinogenic PAHs). These carcinogenic PAHs were detected to levels
of up to 1474 ppm (See Figure 8).
4. Area 5 samples also indicated that shallow soils were contaminated with PCBs. PCBs
were detected at levels ranging from BDL to greater than 2000 ppm. The area with
elevated levels of PCBs overlaps the area with elevated levels of carcinogenic PAHs. Also,
a small portion of Area 2 was contaminated with PCBs (See Figure 7).
5. A separate portion of Area 5 has elevated levels of lead. Maximum levels of 14,100
ppm have been detected in Area 5. Lower levels of lead were detected in Areas 1 and 1A
(See Figure 9).
In addition to the Remedial Investigation, a Seep/Sewer Investigation was performed
in Areas 1, 1A, and 2 of the site. This investigation focused on an apparent seep
discharging to Ackerman's Creek and the various sewers located in this portion of the site.
A seep is an area where ground water is naturally discharged from an aquifer. The seep at
-------
UOP was attributed to the presence of an old storm sewer. Sediments within the sewer
system contained elevated levels of VOCs and PCBs.
Based on the results of analytical sampling, various pathways for contaminant
migration were evaluated. One pathway consisted of soil and ground water contamination
migrating to the adjacent surface water bodies. Once contamination was in the surface
water body, various biota and human populations could become receptors. In addition to
the possible receptors from surface water contamination, other exposure pathways including
direct contact with soils and ground water were considered during the RI/FS.
6. Summary of Site Risks
A baseline risk assessment was conducted by the responsible party under the
direction of the NJDEPE. The purpose of the baseline risk assessment is to determine what
risks are or may potentially be present if no remedial action is taken at the site. For the
UOP site, both human health and ecological baseline risk assessments were performed. The
human health portion of the assessment concentrated on the possible health effects due to
contamination on the uplands area of the site (Operable Unit One). The ecological risk
assessment mainly focused on the contamination in the stream channels. This ecological
assessment included a food chain assessment. The ecological risk assessment for the
uplands portion of the site consisted of a preliminary ecological survey.
The baseline human health risk assessment was conducted in a four-step sequence.
The steps consisted of the selection of indicator chemicals, the development of an exposure
assessment, the development of a toxicity assessment and lastly, development of a site risk
characterization.
The first step in the baseline human health assessment for the UOP site was the
selection of indicator chemicals that would be representative of site risks. Selection of
indicator chemicals was based on the analytical results of the Phase II and Phase III
remedial investigations. The main criteria utilized for this selection were the relative
concentration of substances at UOP and their relative toxicity. These criteria were utilized
to calculate indicator scores for all potential indicator chemicals. Both the arithmetic mean
and maximum concentration of contaminants were considered in developing the indicator
scores. Upon completion of the indicator scores, further screening was conducted based on
site-specific information to identify the indicator compounds. Indicator compounds were
selected for ground water, surface soils and subsurface soils. The selected indicator
chemicals and their frequency of detection are listed in Table 1.
The second step in conducting the baseline risk assessment at the UOP site was to
develop an appropriate exposure assessment to be utilized in calculating potential risk. This
exposure assessment included identifying the appropriate exposure pathways (i.e., the
-------
ingestion of contaminated soils, etc.), identifying potentially exposed populations, using
monitoring and modeling data to characterize exposure-point concentrations, and
determining the appropriate assumptions to use concerning exposure frequency.
The first portion of the exposure assessment determined the appropriate exposure
pathways to evaluate. Humans may potentially be exposed to contaminants in air, water or
solid media (soils and sediments) directly, or through the food chain. The route of intake
may be by ingestion, inhalation, or dermal absorption. Five pathways were deemed to be
appropriate at the UOP site. These pathways are described in Table 2.
Another portion of the exposure assessment identifies the potentially exposed
populations. In order to make this determinations, the present and future land use of the
site and area were considered. Three potentially exposed populations were identified.
These were young people trespassing on the property, an adult employee work force that
would be present if the site was developed, and a construction worker population that would
be present for a short period of time during any construction project.
After exposure pathways and exposed populations are determined, it is necessary to
determine the concentration of contaminants that may be present at the point of exposure.
Maximum concentrations and arithmetic means of analytical data were used as a starting
point for determining the concentration at the point of exposure. Various assumptions and
predictive models were then used to develop the concentrations of contaminants that would
be present in the air and soil and available for uptake by the exposed population.
The final portion of the exposure assessment consisted of determining the
appropriate assumptions to make concerning the various exposed populations. For example
it was assumed that a trespasser would be on the site one hour per week, twelve months out
of the year, and would inhale one cubic meter of air.
The third step in conducting a baseline risk assessment is performing a toxicity
assessment. The purpose of this assessment is to determine dose-response relationships for
the indicator compounds present at the UOP site. For carcinogens, the dose-response
relationship is translated to a slope factor. For non-carcinogenic substances, Reference
Doses (Rfds) and Inhalation Concentrations (Rfcs) are developed that can be used to
identify if an intake value is below the threshold value for an adverse effect to occur.
Cancer slope factors (CSFs) have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic Assessment
Verification Endeavor (CRAVE) for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated with
exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals. CSFs, which are expressed in units of
milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg-day)"1, are multiplied by the estimated intake of a
potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to provide an upper-bound estimate of the excess
lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at that intake level. The term "upper bound"
reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated from the CSF. Use of this approach
makes underestimation of the actual cancer risk highly unlikely. Cancer potency factors are
-------
derived from the results of human epidemiological studies or chronic animal bioassays to
which animal-to-human extrapolation and uncertainty factors have been applied. The CPFs
used for the UOP risk assessment are listed in Table 3.
Reference Doses (Rfds) and Inhalation Concentrations (Rfcs) have been developed
by EPA for indicating the potential for adverse health effects from exposure to chemicals
exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. Rfds and Rfcs, which are expressed in units of mg/kg-
day, are estimates of lifetime daily exposure levels for humans, including sensitive
individuals, that are not likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse health effects.
Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g., the amount of a chemical
ingested from contaminated drinking water) can be compared to the Rfds and Rfcs . Rfds
and Rfcs are derived from human epidemiological studies or animal studies to which
uncertainty factors have been applied (e.g., to account for the use of animal data to predict
effects on humans). These uncertainty factors help ensure that the Rfds and Rfcs will not
underestimate the potential for adverse noncarcinogenic effects to occur. The Rfds and
Rfcs used for the UOP risk assessment are listed in Table 3.
The final step of the risk assessment consists of estimating the risk present at a site.
This is computed by utilizing the information gathered during the three previous steps of
the risk assessment process. Both the carcinogenic are non-carcinogenic risks are quantified.
Excess lifetime cancer risks are determined by multiplying the intake level with the
cancer potency factor. These risks are probabilities that are generally expressed in scientific
notation (e.g., IxlO"6 or 1E-6). An excess lifetime cancer risk of IxlO"6 indicates that, as a
plausible upper bound, an individual has a one in one million chance of developing cancer
as a result of site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime under the specific
exposure conditions at a site. The total carcinogenic risk presented in the 1989 risk
assessment ranged from 8.99xlO'5 for the present site use scenario to 8.06xlO~7 for the future
site worker scenario. All individual and total carcinogenic risks associated with the site are
listed on Tables 4,5, and 6. All the calculated risks in the 1989 risk assessment were within
or below EPA's acceptable risk range of KT* to 10"6. Supplemental surface data collected
in December 1989 and analyzed for PCBs and PAHs had higher levels of PCB and PAH
contamination than earlier rounds. This new round elevated the maximum and average
PCB and PAH concentrations (see Table 7). Based on this new data, risk levels were
recalculated. The new risk levels ranged from 4.4x10"* for the present use scenario to
1.28xlO"s for the construction worker scenario (see Table 8).
Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a single contaminant in a single
medium is expressed as the "hazard quotient" (HQ) or the ratio of the estimated intake
derived from the contaminant concentration in a given medium to the contaminant's Rfd.
By adding the HQ for all contaminants within a medium or across all media to which a
given population may potentially be exposed, the Hazard Index (HI) can be generated. The
HI provides a useful reference point for gauging the potential significance of multiple
-------
contaminant exposures within a single medium or across media.. The calculated individual
hazard indices and total hazard index are listed in Tables 9, 10, and 11.
Several sources of uncertainty exist in the risk assessment. These uncertainties
generally can be placed into three categories:
1) Variance in analytical measurement techniques and the quality of the results
2) Uncertainty related to the human activities giving rise to exposure
3) Uncertainty related to dose-response extrapolation.
In order to minimize any underestimation of risk caused by these areas of uncertainty, many
conservative assumptions were utilized in preparing the risk assessment.
The major finding of the risk assessment was that PCB and PAH contaminated soils
presented unacceptable carcinogenic risk levels (up to 4.4x10^). In addition to the baseline
risk assessment, some other factors indicate that human health and the environment may
potentially be affected at the site. EPA performed an independent risk evaluation for some
compounds at the UOP site. This evaluation indicated that levels of 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane in some site soils fell within the 10" to 10"6 risk range. Also, after
completion of the risk assessment, additional samples were taken for lead. Results of these
samples were a magnitude greater than previous samples with a maximum level of 14,100
ppm being detected. These levels of lead exceed EPA guidelines and NJDEPE's most
recent general guidance. The New Jersey guidelines provide health based criteria designed
to provide for the protection of human health across the State.
The Seep/Sewer Investigation evaluated the migration of VOCs and BNAs in ground
water to surface water via ground water seeps related to the various sewer networks
present at the UOP site. This study determined that relatively high levels of VOCs were
present in the sewer system and were discharging to Ackerman's Creek. The study also
demonstrated that while BNAs were present in the ground water, migration to the sewer
system and stream is minimal.
In addition to human health risks, the risks to the environment were considered. A
preliminary survey of terrestrial plants and wildlife on the site was conducted in October
1988. The survey of terrestrial animals and both woody and herbaceous vegetation indicated
no differences between study and reference areas that might be associated with
environmental impact Based on the results of the preliminary survey, it was determined
that no further studies were warranted. A more in-depth ecological risk assessment was
performed for Operable Unit Three, the stream channels.
In summary, actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if
not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
-------
7. Description of Alternatives
To aide in analyzing remedial alternatives for Operable Unit One, the UOP site was
divided into four distinct remediation areas. These areas are based on contaminant type
and media affected. The four areas are as follows:
• PCB/PAH-contaminated soil
• VOC-contaminated soil
• Lead-contaminated soil
• VOC-contaminated leachate
PCB/PAH-Contaminated Soil
The FS report provides a detailed evaluation of all options, referred to as remedial
alternatives, to address PCB/PAH contaminated soils at the site. Detailed descriptions of
all the remedial alternatives can be found in the FS report which is available in the
Administrative Record repositories as previously noted in this decision document. The three
most applicable PCB/PAH alternatives from the FS and the No Action alternative are
presented here. Time to implement includes remedial design. Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) costs are based on any maintenance costs associated with a potential remedy (e.g.,
cap maintenance) and general review costs. Remediation goals for PCB/PAH-contaminated
soil are included on Table 12.
These alternatives are:
Alternative #P1: No Action
Capital Cost: $0.00
O&M Cost: $1300/year
Present Worth Cost: $40,000
Time to Implement: 0 months
The Superfund program requires that the "no-action" alternative be considered as a
baseline for comparison of other alternatives. The no action alternative would be
appropriate if the potential endangerment is negligible or if implementation of a remedial
action would result in a greater potential risk.
-------
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-site, CERCLA
requires that the site be reviewed every five years. If justified by the review, remedial
actions may be implemented.
Alternative #P2: Soil Cover
Capital Cost: $470,000
O & M Cost: $2,600
Present Worth Cost: $550,000
Time to Implement: 28 months
This alternative consists of constructing a soil cover over soils that exceed the
remediation goal. Approximately 4.9 acres would require placement of the soil cover. The
cap would be a minimum 2 foot depth to prevent contact with contaminated soils. The con-
struction of the cover would have to meet wetlands and soil erosion requirements. Also, any
relevant flood plain requirements would have to be met. Institutional controls would be
required due to the presence of contaminants above remediation goals. Because this
alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-site, CERCLA requires that the site
be reviewed every five years. If justified by the review, remedial actions may be implement-
ed.
Alternative #P8: Soil Washing
Capital Cost: $8.2 M
O & M Costs: $2,600/year
Present Worth Cost: $83 M
Time to Implement: 50 months
Soil washing uses a solvent to separate contaminants from the soil. The contaminants
can then be removed from the solvent, allowing the reuse of solvent and the destruction of
contaminants off-site. 16,000 cubic yards of PCB/PAH-contaminated soil would be treated.
This option would have to meet wetlands and soil erosion requirements during soil
excavation. Treated soils will be returned to the excavation after treatment. Soil washing
is considered an innovative technology. It may have some difficulty achieving remediation
goals due to the high amount of clay and organic matter content in soils at the UOP site.
A treatabiliry study conducted for this technology verified this difficulty. Soils containing
contaminant residues, perhaps at levels greater than the cleanup goals, may remain on-site.
In the event that the PCB cleanup goal of 2 ppm is not met, a waiver of Toxic Substance
Control Act (TSCA) chemical waste landfill requirements will be needed for this alternative.
The presence of contaminants on-site would require that institutional controls be implement-
10
-------
ed. Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-site, CERCLA
requires that the site be reviewed every five years. If justified by the review, remedial
actions may be implemented.
Alternative #P9: Thermal Desorption
Capital Cost: $11.0 M
O & M Cost: $2,600/year
Present Worth Cost: $11.1 M
Time to Implement: 47 months
Thermal desorption separates PCB/PAH contamination from soil by heating the soil.
The separate vapor or liquid phase contaminants will then be taken off-site and destroyed.
Thermal desorption is a newer technology but is commonly used to remediate sites
contaminated by organic compounds. 16,000 cubic yards of PCB/PAH-contaminated soil
would be treated. Treated soils will be returned to the excavation after treatment. Due
to the clay and organic matter content of soils, it is questionable whether this technology can
meet the remediation goals at the UOP site. Treatability studies have indicated that
remediation goals may be met using this technology. In the event that such goals are not
met, contaminant residues will remain on treated soils, and institutional controls would be
needed. A waiver of TSCA chemical waste landfill requirements may be needed for this
alternative. Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-site,
CERCLA requires that the site be reviewed every five years. If justified by the review,
remedial actions may be implemented to remove or treat the wastes. This remedy also
would require that wetlands and soil erosion requirements be met.
VOC-Contaminated Soils
The FS report provides a detailed evaluation of all options, referred to as remedial
alternatives, to address VOC contaminated soils at the site. Detailed descriptions of all the
remedial alternatives can be found in the FS report which is available in the Administrative
Record repositories as previously noted in this decision document. The five most applicable
VOC alternatives from the FS and the No Action alternative are presented here. The
remediation goals for VOC-contaminated soils are listed on Table 12.
These alternatives are:
Alternative #V1: No Action
11
-------
Capital Cost: $0.00
O & M Cost: $1300/year
Present Worth Cost: $40,000
Time to Implement: immediate
See description under Alternative #P1
Alternative #V4: Bioremediation
Capital Cost: $2.1 M
O & M Cost: $2,600/year
Present Worth Cost: $2.2 M
Time to Implement: 40 months
Alternative #V4 considers the bioremediation of VOC-contaminated soil. 7000 cubic
yards of soil would require treatment. Bioremediation is an innovative technology that
involves the breakdown of organic contaminants by naturally-occurring microbes.
Environmental factors, such as Ph, nutrient levels, and temperature, are controlled in a
reactor to maximize the rate of degradation. Residual contamination may be present in the
soils and water involved with the process, or air released from the process. All of these
residuals would need to be properly managed. In the cases of water and air, applicable
discharge requirements would need to be met. Relevant soil erosion and wetlands require-
ments due to the excavation of the contaminated soil would also have to be met.
Institutional controls would be required. Because this alternative may result in contaminants
remaining on-site, CERCLA requires that the site be reviewed every five years. If justified
by the review, remedial actions may be implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
Alternatives #V7 and #V8:
Alternative #V7 Soil Washing
Capital Cost: $4.0 M
Present Worth Cost: $4.0 M
Time to Implement: 45 months
Alternative #V8 Thermal Desorption
Capital Cost: $5.1 M
Present Worth Cost: $5.1 M
Time to Implement: 41 months
Alternatives #V7 and #V8 consider the use of soil washing and thermal desorption,
respectively, to treat soils contaminated with VOCs. The processes of these two
technologies were described under the section on treating PCB/PAH contaminated soils.
12
-------
While soil washing was considered an innovative technology for.the removal of PCBs and
PAHs, it is expected that soil washing will be able to treat the VOC-contaminated soils to
levels well below the remediation goals. Similarly, for PCBs and PAHs, thermal
desorption's effectiveness in achieving the necessary remediation goals is questioned,
however, this technology is expected to achieve the VOC remediation goals since VOCs are
more readily driven from soils upon thermal treatment than PCBs and PAHs. like
bioremediation, approximately 7000 cubic yards of VOC-contaminated soil require
treatment. As with other alternatives, the excavation of the contaminated material would
have to meet the necessary wetlands and soil erosion requirements. The thermal desorption
unit would have to meet necessary air emission requirements. Because this alternative
would result in contaminants remaining on-site, CERCLA requires that the site be reviewed
every five years. If justified by the review, remedial actions may be implemented.
Alternative #V9 Ex situ Vapor Extraction
Capital Cost: $1.9 M
Present Worth Cost: $1.9 M
Time to Implement: 47 months
Alternative #V9 would treat VOC-contaminated soils by ex-situ vapor extraction. Ex-
situ vapor extraction first requires that soils be excavated. 7000 cubic yards of VOC-
contaminated soil would be excavated. During excavation, wetlands and soil erosion
requirements would need to be met. The excavated soils would then be placed in a
controlled area, and-air would be drawn through the soil to remove VOCs from the soil.
Vapor extraction should decrease VOCs to below remediation goals. The process would
produce VOC emissions that would be required to meet applicable air emission levels.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-site, CERCLA requires
that the site be reviewed every five years. If justified by the review, remedial actions may
be implemented.
Lead-contaminated soils
The FS report evaluates, in detail, 7 remedial alternatives for addressing soils
contaminated with lead. The top 4 alternatives from the Feasibility Study and the no action
alternative are presented here. The remediation goal for lead-contaminated soils is listed
on Table 12
Alternative #L1: No Action
Capital Cost: $0.00
O & M Cost: $1300/year
Present Worth Cost: $40,000
Time to Implement: immediate
13
-------
See description under Alternative #P1.
Alternative #12: Soil Cover
Capital Cost: $150,000
O & M Cost: $2600/year
Present Worth Cost: $230,000
Time to Implement: 28 months
Alternative #L2 consists of a soil cover over areas of lead greater than the
remediation goal and the implementation of institutional controls. The soil cover would be
2 feet deep to prevent contact with the contaminated material. 3.7 acres require covering.
Construction of the cover would have to meet any relevant wetlands or soil erosion require-
ments. Also, relevant flood plain requirements would be met. Because this alternative
would result in contaminants remaining on-site, CERCLA requires that the site be reviewed
every five years. If justified by the review, remedial actions may be implemented.
Alternative #L3 Impermeable Cap
Capital Cost: $545,000
O & M Costs: $2,600/year
Present Worth: $660,000
Time to Implement: 28 months
Alternative #L3 considers various options for capping lead-contaminated soils to
meet 10"7permeability. Various cap types are considered. All of the capping options would
prevent contact with contaminated material. Any cap would have to meet wetlands and soil
erosion requirements. Also, any relevant flood plain requirements would need to be met.
Institutional controls would be required due to the contamination remaining on-site. Be-
cause this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-site, CERCLA requires
that the site be reviewed every five years. If justified by the review, remedial actions may
be implemented. £
Alternative #L6 Solidification
Capital Cost: $2.8 M
O & M Costs: $l,900/year
Present Worth: $2.9 M
Time to Implement: 28 months
Alternative #L6 is the solidification of lead-contaminated soils. Solidification places
lead-contaminated soil in a matrix with a binding material to prevent the migration of lead.
12,000 cubic yards of material would be solidified. This is a common technology for treating
inorganic contamination. The implementation of this technology would have to consider its
14
-------
impact on soil erosion and wetlands. Because this alternative would result in contaminants
remaining on-site, CERCLA requires that the site be reviewed every five years. If justified
by the review, remedial actions may be implemented to remove or treat the wastes. Also,
institutional controls would be implemented.
Alternative #L7: Excavation and Off-site Disposal
Capital Cost: $103 M
Present Worth Cost: $103 M
Time to Implement: 31 months
Alternative #L7 consists of excavation and off-site disposal of lead above the
remediation goal. This alternative would have to meet wetlands and soil erosion require-
ments. Also, requirements pertaining to the transport of contaminated materials would
have to be met. Approximately 12,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil would be excavated
and disposed off-site.
VOC-Contaminated Leachate
The Feasibility Study evaluates, in detail, two remedial alternatives for treating
leachate contaminated with VOCs at the site. The portion of the site that will be addressed
with these alternatives consists of sections of Areas 1, 1 A, and 2. Much of the background
concerning these alternatives is contained in the document entitled IRM Work Plan. The
area of VOC-contaminated leachate is defined on Table 12.
Alternative #LEACHATE1: No Action
Capital Cost: $0.00
O & M Cost: $3,500/year
Present Worth Cost: $100,000
Time to Implement: immediate
See description under Alternative #P1.
Alternative #LEACHATE2: Leachate
Collection and Treatment
Capital Cost: $1.3 M
O & M Cost: $130,000
15
-------
Present Worth Cost: $1.4 M
Time to Implement: 27 months
Alternative #LEACHATE2 consists of the excavation of leachate collection pits and
trenches, treating leachate that collects in the excavation, and discharging the treated water
to ground water. Approximately 5.6 million gallons of leachate would require treatment.
This alternative would utilize conventional excavation, treatment (such as carbon adsorption)
and discharge equipment. It is expected that levels of contamination in the leachate could
be highly reduced. The excavation of the trenches and pits would have to meet soil erosion
and wetlands criteria. The leachate treatment system and the discharge will meet applicable
discharge requirements. If this alternative results in contaminants remaining on site,
CERCLA requires that the site be reviewed every five years. A future review should
determine if this source removal is protective of ground water and surface water or if further
remedial actions for ground water are necessary.
8. Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives, each alternative is assessed
against the following nine evaluation criteria.
o Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether or not
a remedy provides adequate protection and describes how risks posed through each
pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering
controls, or institutional controls.
o Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs^
addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all of the applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements of other federal and state environmental statutes and re-
quirements or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
o Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain
reliable protection of human health and the environment over time, once cleanup
goals have been met
o Reduction of toxicity. mobility, or volume through treatment is the anticipated perfor-
mance of the treatment technologies a remedy may employ.
o Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve protection
and any adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed
during the construction and implementation period until cleanup goals are achieved.
16
-------
o Implementability is the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy, including
the availability of materials and services needed to implement a particular option.
o Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs, and net present
worth costs.
o EPA acceptance discusses if the support agency concurs with the remedy selected by
the NJDEPE.
o Community acceptance is assessed based on a review of the public comments
received on the RI/FS reports and the Proposed Plan.
A comparative analysis of alternatives based upon the evaluation criteria noted above was
performed for each remediation area.
PCB/PAH-Contaminated Soil
The analysis for remediating PCB/PAH-contaminated soils is presented first:
o Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative #P1, no action, would not be protective of human health and the
environment because contaminant concentrations pose an unacceptable risk to human health
and the environment Specifically, current levels of PCBs and PAHs at the UOP site pose
and unacceptable level of risk. The No Action alternative would not address this risk.
Alternative #P2, soil cover, would reduce risk by preventing contact with contaminated soils.
However, the covering of contaminated soil would not permanently address contamination.
Alternative #P8, soil washing, would permanently remove high levels of PCBs and PAHs
from the soil. However, treatability studies have indicated it may be difficult to achieve
remedial goals with soil washing. A bench-scale treatability study reduced PCBs in one
sample from 850 ppm to 28 pprn and another sample from 360 ppm to 7.5. Alternative
#P9, thermal desorption, will permanently remove PCBs/PAHs from the soil. Low levels
of contamination may remain in the soil. However, based on the results of treatability
studies, it is believed that thermal desorption may be more capable of consistently removing
high levels of PCBs and PAHs than soil washing. Treatability studies show that PCB levels
could be reduced below detection limits (i.e., O.Sppm).
17
-------
o (Compliance with ARARs
There are three types of ARARs: action-specific, chemical specific, and location
specific. Action-specific ARARs are technology or activity-specific requirements or
limitations. Chemical-specific ARARs establish the amount or concentrations of a chemical
that may be found in, or discharged to, the environment. Location-specific ARARs are
restrictions placed on concentrations of hazardous substances found in a specific location,
or the conduct of activities solely because they occur in a specific location. In the absence
of an ARAR, the use of other criteria (i.e. To Be Considered or TBC) or risk-based levels
may be evaluated.
Alternatives #P1 and #P2 would not meet the cleanup goal for the UOP site since
no reduction in levels of PCBs and PAHs would be realized. Alternative #P8, soil washing,
will not achieve the remediation goals for the site. Alternative #P9, thermal desorption,
may have difficulty achieving cleanup goals for the site. All action alternatives would meet
applicable soil erosion and wetlands requirements. Due to the site's location in a tidal flood
plain, Alternative #P2 would need to be constructed in a manner to minimize its effect on
flooding. Alternative #P9 would also meet the necessary air emission standards.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is a federal law which regulates the
management and disposal of PCBs. In general, depending on the nature of the PCB
containing material and the PCB concentration in the material, TSCA may require
incineration or disposal in a chemical waste landfill approved for PCB disposal. PCBs that
are required to be incinerated may also be treated by an approved alternate method that
provides PCB destruction equivalent to incineration. The TSCA regulations are applicable
to the management and disposal of the PCB contaminated soils once they have been
excavated during cleanup.
Under TSCA, an alternative treatment method could be considered equivalent to
incineration if it reduces PCBs to concentrations no greater than 2 ppm after treatment.
Unless treatment of PCB contaminated soils reduces PCB concentrations to levels below 2
ppm, the residual from the treatment process must be disposed of in a TSCA chemical
waste landfill unless a waiver is invoked.
o Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
The no action alternative will not affect the levels of PCBs/PAHs in the soil.
Contamination will remain on site that presents an unacceptable risk. Alternative #P2, soil
cover, could provide some long-term effectiveness provided that the cover is properly main-
tained. Alternative #P8, soil washing, offers some long-term effectiveness and permanence
since it would remove contaminants from the soil. However, soil above the remediation
goal may remain. Alternative #P9, thermal desorption, offers the highest degree of long-
term effectiveness and permanence since the potential for residuals to be above the
18
-------
remediation goals is less than for Alternatives #P1, #P2 and #P8. All remedies would
require five year reviews.
o Reduction in Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume
Both no action and soil cover do not use treatment to reduce toxicity, mobility or
volume of contamination in the soil. Thermal desorption permanently reduces toxicity,
mobility and volume of the contaminants. Thermal desorption is more likely to remove a
greater portion of contaminants than soil washing, leaving less residual contamination in the
soil.
o Short-Term Effectiveness
The no action alternative would have no short-term effects. However, current
conditions of the site pose an unacceptable level of risk, and no action would not reduce this
risk. Alternatives #P2, P8 and P9 share similar short-term effects. The potential short-term
risks to human health and the environment are anticipated to be low for each of these
alternatives. Specifically, workers implementing any of the three alternatives could be
exposed to contamination, but this can be controlled by utilizing proper worker safety
methods. All three alternatives may have short-term impacts on soil erosion and wetlands*.
However, the extent of this effect can be mitigated by compliance with appropriate
requirements.
o Implementabiliry
All alternatives discussed concerning PCB/PAH-contaminated soils are
implementable. The no action alternative could be easily implemented. Alternative #P2,
soil cover, utilizes common construction procedures which are also easily implementable.
Although meeting soil erosion requirements would be simpler for Alternative #P2, they are
readily achievable for Alternatives P8 and P9. Alternative #P8, soil washing, is an innovative
technology. This technology involves a complex treatment and verification monitoring
process. Both alternatives P8, and P9 are implementable. However treatability studies show
that actual field conditions could warrant the washing of soils multiple times to meet the
required soil cleanup levels due to the clay and organic matter content of soils. Alternative
#P9, thermal desorption, may also encounter operational difficulties but is more likely to
achieve ther remediation goals with less reprocessing.
o Cost
The least expensive remedial alternative that addresses PCB/PAH-contaminated soils
is alternative #P1, no action. Its present worth cost is approximately $40,000. Alternative
#P2's present worth cost is $550,000. Alternative #P8's present worth cost is $83 M.
Alternative #P9's present worth cost is $11.1 M
19
-------
o EPA Acceptance
The EPA concurs with the selected interim remedy specified on page 25.
o Community Acceptance
Based on comments received during the two public comment periods and the public
meeting, the community supports the selected remedy. Public comments and responses are
detailed in the responsiveness summary.
Evaluation of Combined Alternatives
The National Contingency Plan sets forth EPA's expectation for the use of treatment
at superfund sites. The Agency seeks to treat principal threats, while containment of low
level threats is permissible. Examples of principal threats include source materials that are
considered highly toxic or highly mobile that generally cannot be reliably contained. Low
level threats are materials that can be reliably contained and would present only a low risk
in the event of a release. The above section evaluated individual remedial alternatives.
However, while evaluating the remedial alternatives for PCB/PAH-contaminated soil, it
became apparent that a combination of PCB/PAH alternatives could provide adequate
protection of human health while significantly reducing the overall cost of remediation.
Specifically, treatment of principal threats and capping of low level threats (i.e., soils
containing PCB contamination below 25 ppm) was considered. An analysis of these
combinations of alternatives did demonstrate that such a combination can be protective of
human health and the environment while decreasing remediation costs by as much as 50
percent As an example, a combination of thermal desorption and soil cover is protective
of human health and the environment; complies with ARARs; provides long-term
effectiveness and permanence; reduces toxicity, mobility and volume through treatment;
increases implementability, and decreases cost. The cost of the combined remedy, which
reduces the volume of soil to be treated and increases the area of soil to be covered is 5.6
M compared to 11.1 M , which would involve treating PCB contaminated soils to 2ppm.
VOC-contaminated Soils
Following is the analysis for remediating VOC-contaminated soils.
o Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
VOCs are present in the soil above the health based levels. Alternative #V1, the
no action alternative, would not reduce levels of VOCs in the soil and does not provide
protection of human health and the environment because contaminants will continue to
leach to ground water. Alternative # V4, bioremediation, may have some difficulty achieving
cleanup goals due to its innovative nature. Alternatives #V7, soil washing, and #V8,
20
-------
thermal desorption, are capable of meeting remediation goals for VOCs. Alternative #V9,
ex situ vapor extraction, also should achieve remediation goals.
o Compliance with ARARs
The No Action alternative would not comply with the remediation goal for the site.
Alternatives V4,V7,V8, and V9 would have to meet applicable wetlands and soil erosion
requirements. Alternatives V4,V8, and V9 will meet air emission requirements.
o Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative #V1, no action, will not affect the levels of VOCs in the soil and will not
be effective in the long-term. Alternative #V4, bioremediation, will convert VOCs to
carbon dioxide and water, permanently destroying the contaminants. Alternatives V7.V8,
and V9 will remove VOCs from the soil. The separated VOCs can then be destroyed. With
respect to the treatment alternatives, thermal desorption is a permanent and effective
technology since it results in destruction of contaminants. Soil washing and biological
treatment have the potential to permanently remediate the soils; however some uncertainties
exist regarding the effectiveness with which these innovative technologies could remove
contaminants from the soil at this site.
o Reduction in Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume
Alternative #V1, no action, does not utilize treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility,
or volume of VOCs in soil. Bioremediation, alternative #V4, will reduce toxicity, mobility
and volume, however, the extent of reduction may be insufficient to meet the cleanup goal
at the site. Alternatives V7.V8, and V9 reduce toxicity, mobility and volume by removing
the VOCs from the soil allowing for their destruction. Alternative #V9, thermal desorption,
provides the highest efficiency of removal of contaminants from the soil.
o Short-Term Effectiveness
No action will result in no change to current site conditions. All other alternatives
may have to consider short-term effects on soil erosion and wetlands. Also, during
implementation of all the alternatives, workers will be required to have proper training and
equipment to prevent short-term exposure to VOCs.
o Implementabih'ty
The No Action Alternative does not pose an implementation problem, since no
activities would be conducted. Both soil washing and thermal desorption are implementable.
Thermal desorption would be more easily implemented since it employs fewer steps in its
process when compared to soil washing. Soil washing involves a more complex treatment
and verification monitoring process. Soils conditions at the UOP (i.e. high clay and organic
21
-------
matter content) could warrant the washing of soils multiple times to meet the required soil
cleanup levels. Processing equipment for soil washing must be custom designed according
to unique site specifications, whereas thermal desorption units and equipment are readily
available for immediate use. For example, thermal units are commonly used for treating
soils contaminated with gasoline associated with leaking underground storage tanks. The
contaminants associated with these tanks are very similar to those found at UOP.
Therefore, the thermal desorption alternative is more easily implemented than soil washing.
Sampling of treated soil is necessary for both alternatives, however, the sampling
requirements for soil washing are more extensive due to the use of solvents in the treatment
process. Biological treatment has the potential to remediate the soils; however some
uncertainties exist regarding its implementability at this site. Since bioremediation relies on
the activity of naturally occurring or augmented populations of bacteria, it is necessary to
maintain a strict environment for optimum performance. Such conditions may be difficult
to maintain at the site. Alternative #V9, ex situ vapor extraction would be fairly easy to
implement. The most difficult task with Alternative #V9 would be the capture of fugitive
VOC emissions. However, this can be addressed fairly easily by containing the remediation
system in some type of structure.
o Cost
The No Action alternative has a present worth cost of $40,000. Alternative #V4,
bioremediation, has a present worth cost of $2.2 M. The present worth cost of Alternative
#V7, soil washing, is $4.0 M. The present worth cost of Alternative #V8, thermal desorp-
tion is $5.1 M. The present worth cost of Alternative #V9, ex situ vapor extraction is $1.9
M. However, the costs of Alternatives V7 and V8 are much lower when implemented in
• conjunction with PCB/PAH treatment due to the single set of start-up costs associated with
using the same remedial technology on different areas of the site. The cost associated with
alternative #V9 when it is also utilized for PCB/PAH treatment is $1 M. The cost of
alternative #V8 when it is also utilized for PCB/PAH treatment is $2 M.
o EPA Acceptance
The EPA concurs with the selected interim remedy specified on page 26.
o Community Acceptance
Based on comments received during the two public comment periods and the public
meeting, the community supports the selected remedy. Public comments and responses are
detailed in the responsiveness summary.
Lead-contaminated Soils
Following is the analysis for remediating lead-contaminated soils.
22
-------
o Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative #L1, no action, would not be protective of human health due to the
presence of lead concentrations greater than those deemed acceptable by the EPA and
NJDEPE. Alternative #L2, soil cover, would protect human health by preventing contact
with lead at levels greater than the cleanup goal developed for the site. Alternative #L3,
capping the contaminated area, prevents contact with contaminated soil. However, capping
would require the permanent destruction of some wetlands. #L2 and #L3 require mainte-
nance to perform adequately. Alternative #L6, solidification, provides protection of human
health by preventing contact with lead-contaminated soil by placing the soil in a concrete-
like matrix. Solidification would also require the permanent destruction of some wetlands.
Alternative #L7 would remove all contaminated soils above the remediation objective.
However, this alternative may have a significant effect on wetlands during implementation.
All alternatives would require a five year review.
o Compliance with ARARs
No action does not meet the remediation goal for the site. All action alternatives
should meet the remediation goals for the site. All action alternatives would have to meet
wetlands and soil erosion requirements.
o Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
No action provides no long-term effectiveness and permanence. All other
alternatives leave contaminants on-site, therefore requiring a five year review. If properly
maintained all action alternatives should provide long-term effectiveness. Alternative #L2,
soil cover, will remain effective, if properly maintained, by preventing contact with lead-
contaminated soils. Alternative #L3, capping, prevents contact with contaminated soils, and,
in addition, would mitigate the leaching of lead to ground water. For Alternative #L3,
proper maintenance would be required to achieve this. Alternative #L7, excavation and off-
site disposal, provides long-term effectiveness by removing all soils present on-site above the
remediation goal. Due to the isolated and industrial nature of the area institutional controls
should be fairly easy to implement and maintain.
o Reduction in Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume
No action provides no reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume of contaminants.
Alternatives #L2 and #L3 do not utilize treatment to reduce toxicity, mobility or volume.
Alternative #L6 reduces mobility by placing lead in this solid matrix, but increases the total
volume of material. Alternative #L7 does not utilize treatment to reduce toxicity, mobility,
or volume.
23
-------
o Short-Term Effectiveness
No action does not provide short-term effectiveness due to the presence of lead
above remediation goals at the site. All action alternatives will have to utilize proper
worker safety procedures, and soil erosion and wetlands mitigation procedures to minimize
any short-term impacts.
o Implementability
All alternatives discussed concerning lead-contaminated soil are implementable. No
action would be the simplest to implement. Soil cover would be the next simplest to
implement Action alternatives will have to meet wetlands and soil erosion requirements
during implementation. Due to the nature of the area, a former municipal fill area which
is now covered with well developed trees, implementing capping, solidification, and
excavation alternatives may prove difficult due to limited access to the area. To gain access
for the heavy equipment that would be required to implement this alternative, it would be
necessary to destroy a large portion of the site's trees. Due to the industrial history of the
site, the placement of use restrictions should be easy to implement.
o Cost
The present worth value of the no action alternative is $40,000. Alternative #L2's
present worth cost is $230,000. The present worth cost of capping, alternative #L3, is
$645,000. The present worth cost of solidification is $2.9 M. The present worth cost of
Alternative #L7 is $10.3 M.
o EPA Acceptance
The EPA concurs with the selected interim remedy specified on page 26.
o Community Acceptance
Based on comments received during the two public comment periods and the public
meeting, the community supports the selected remedy. Public comments and responses are
detailed in the responsiveness summary.
24
-------
VOC-contaminated Leachate
Following is the analysis for remediating VOC-contaminated leachate.
o Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
No action would not reduce VOCs in the leachate to concentration levels that are
protective of human health and the environment. Alternative #LEACHATE2 will achieve
levels that are protective of human health and the environment by collecting leachate and
treating the contaminated leachate. Final analysis if further remediation is needed to
protect ground water and surface water will occur in the future.
o Compliance with ARARs
No action would not meet remediation goals for the site. Alternative #LEAC-
HATE2 will meet the guidance, soil erosion and wetlands requirements, and ground water
treatment and discharge requirements.
o Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative #LEACHATE1 provides no long-term effectiveness and permanence.
Alternative #LEACHATE2 will permanently remove VOC leachate and will prevent
leachate from entering the ground water.
o Reduction in Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume
No action will not reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of VOCs in the ground water.
Alternative #LEACHATE2 will reduce toxicity, mobility and volume by removing and
treating VOCs in the leachate.
o Short-Term Effectiveness
No action is not effective in the short term due to the presence of VOCs above the
remediation goal. Mitigation measures for soil erosion and wetlands may be necessary to
minimize short-term effects for Alternative #LEACHATE2.
o Implementability
The no action alternative would be very easy to implement. Alternative
#LEACHATE2 should be fairly simple to implement. It is expected that this will be fairly
easy to implement because it utilizes standard technologies such as excavation and
conventional treatment technologies. It would be required that all substantive permits
requirements, such as discharge limits to groundwater, be met to proceed with this remedy.
25
-------
o Cost
The present worth cost of no action is $100,000. The present worth cost of
Alternative #LEACHATE2 is $1.4 M.
o EPA Acceptance
The EPA concurs with the selected interim remedy specified on page 26.
o Community Acceptance
Based on comments received during the two public comment periods and the public
meeting, the community supports the selected remedy. Public comments and responses are
detailed in the responsiveness summary.
9. Selected Remedy
For PCB/PAH-contaminated soils, the selected remedy is a combination of
Alternatives #P2 and #P9:
Thermal desorption for highly contaminated soils
• Soil cover for less contaminated soil
Institutional controls.
Some TSCA equivalent levels will not be met in certain areas of the site. Soil cover
will be placed over these areas containing residual contamination. Highly contaminated
soils is defined as those soils with a PCB concentration greater than 25 mg/kg and total
carcinogenic PAHs greater than 29 mg/kg. Treatment of these soils will reduce PCB
concentrations to <10 ppm and carcinogenic PAHs <20 ppm. Remaining soils and
treatment residuals that exceed the remediation goals will be placed under a two foot soil
cover and be subject to deed restrictions on that portion of the site. It is the responsiblity
of the state to ensure that the owner is aware of the deed restrictions. Figure 10 shows the
PCB/PAH remediation area.
The selected remedy will excavate and treat approximately 6,800 yd3 of contaminated
soil and require a soil cover area of approximately 4.9 acres. The cost of the combined
remedy is $5.6 million.
For VOC-contaminated soil, the selected remedy is Alternative #V8:
Thermal Desorption
26
-------
The cleanup goal for VOCs in soil is 1000 ppm. The selected remedy will excavate
and treat approximately 7,200 yd3 of soil at a cost of $2 M. The approximate area affected
by this remediation is shown on Figure 11. In addition to the VOC-contaminated soil, this
treatment will be utilized to treat contaminated sediment associated with the site sewer
systems.
For lead-contaminated soils, a combination of Alternatives #L2 and #L3 was
selected:
Soil cover/impermeable cap
Institutional controls.
The cleanup goal of 600 ppm is based on NJDEPE and EPA guidance. The lead
contaminated soils will undergo toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) testing to
determine whether lead exhibits the characteristic of toxicity at the UOP site.
Approximately 3.7 acres will be covered by a soil cover/impermeable cap. Figure 12
illustrates the location of soils above the remediation goal. The purpose of the soil
cover/cap is to construct an low permeability layer to prevent surface water/stormwater
infiltration through lead-contaminated material. Also, the cover/cap will be designed to
prevent surficial contact with the contaminated material. The cap shall have a permeability
equal to or less than 1 x 10"7 cm/sec. Institutional controls will be placed on the property
through the use of deed restrictions. The present worth of this alternative is $550,000. This
cost represents the cost of combining alternatives #L2 and #L3.
For VOC-contaminated leachate, Alternative #LEACHATE2 was selected:
Leachate collection from trenches/pits
On-site leachate treatment
Discharge to ground water
The area of leachate removal is defined as 1 ppm individual VOC/10 ppm total
VOCs. This area is illustrated in Figure 13. This removal is designed to protect
Ackerman's Creek from the discharge of contaminated leachate. Implementation time of
this portion of the remedy would be approximately 27 months. Implementation time
includes remedial design, construction and operation periods. The system would operate
for approximately four of those months. Upon completion of this portion of the remedy,
it will be necessary to evaluate if this remedy removed levels of organic contamination that
is protective of ground water and surface water. This evaluation should determine if
contaminant mass reduction from the leachate removal was sufficient to protect the surface
water quality of Ackerman's Creek. If it is not, further ground water remedial work would
be required. It is estimated that this alternative will require the treatment of 5.6 million
gallons of leachate. The present worth cost of this portion of the selected remedy is $1.3
million.
27
-------
10. Statutory Determinations
Protection of Human Health and the Environment.
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment. Soils
contaminated with high levels of PCBs and PAHs will be treated by thermal desorption.
Soils contaminated with lower levels of PCBs and PAHs will be contained by a soil cover
and controlled by institutional controls. This combination removes high level contamination
and prevents exposure to low level contamination. For VOC-contaminated soils, soils above
the cleanup goal will be treated by thermal desorption. Soils contaminated with lead will
be contained by a soil cover/cap and controlled by institutional controls preventing contact
with .surficial contamination and the potential leaching of lead to ground water. VOC-
contaminated leachate will be collected and treated.
This selected remedy will reduce contamination at the UOP site to within acceptable
levels. An evaluation of the protectiveness of the leachate remedy to ground water and
surface water will have to be conducted after completion of this remedy. Although some
short-term risk is associated with these actions, proper mitigation procedures will keep short-
term risks within an acceptable level.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements.
The selected remedy will comply with federal and state Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) except the chemical waste landfill requirements which
EPA is waiving in this ROD for the UOP site. These include:
Action Specific
New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES)
- Discharge to Ground Water Permit, NJ.A.C. 2.1 et seq. and 6.1 et seq.
Permit to Construct/Install/Alter Air Quality Control Apparatus/Equipment,
NJA.C 7:27-8 et seq.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR Part 50 of the Clean Air Act
28
-------
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Certification, NJ.A.C. 2:90
Location Specific
Section 404 and Executive Order 11990 require impacts to wetlands be avoided or
minimized.
Stream Encroachment, N J.A.C. 7:8-3.15 et seq.
Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act, N J.A.C. 7:7A
Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission, NJ.SA 13:17-1 et seq.
Executive Order 11988 requires that a floodplains assessment must be completed for
the site, including a mitigation plan. Additionally, since actions at CERCLA sites are
considered "critical actions", the floodplain delineation/assessment must include
consideration of the project's impacts on the 500-year floodplain.
Coastal Zone Management Act 16 USC 1451
Chemical Specific
New Jersey Soil Quality Criteria - The soil quality criteria are a To Be Considered.
The soil quality criteria are risk based numbers designed to provide protection to
human health and the environment.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is a federal law that regulates the disposal
of PCBs. In general, depending on the nature of the PCB containing material and the PCB
concentration in the material, TSCA may require incineration or disposal in a chemical
waste landfill approved for PCB disposal. PCBs that are required to be incinerated may
also be disposed of by an approved alternative method that provides PCB destruction
equivalent to incineration. The TSCA regulations are applicable to the disposal of the soils
once they have been excavated during cleanup.
TSCA regulations require that treatment of the soils must be equivalent to
incineration and must therefore reduce PCBs to concentrations no greater than 2 ppm after
treatment. Unless treatment of PCB contaminated soils reduces PCB concentrations to
levels below 2 ppm, the residual from the treatment process will be disposed of in an on-site
TSCA chemical waste landfill. EPA "Guidance on Remedial Actions for Superfund Sites
with PCB Contamination" (OSWER Directive 9355.4-01, August 1990) allows the TSCA
landfill requirements to be waived at Superfund Sites in the ROD provided that: there are
low PCB concentrations; a protective cover system is designed and installed and PCB
29
-------
migration to groundwater and surface water is evaluated. Under .an industrial use scenario,
EPA considers 10-25 ppm of PCBs to be protective. This ROD is requiring the placement
of a soil cover over the residual soils from the treatment system (i.e., soils with
concentrations less than 10 ppm). The soil cover will prevent treated soils from becoming
airborne and erosion of treated soils (including erosion into surface water). With respect
to PCB migration to groundwater, the Directive states that generally, PCB concentrations
that are protective of human health via direct contact exposure would be protective of the
groundwater. Additionally, since the landfilled materials are residuals from a thermal
treatment process, contaminants that might enhance PCB migration (e.g., volatile organics)
would be driven off. As a result, EPA is waiving TSCA chemical waste landfill
requirements at the UOP site for this ROD since the residuals (i.e., PCB levels less than
10 ppm) from the treatment process for this selected remedy do not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment from PCBs.
Cost-Effectiveness.
The combination of alternatives selected for this remedial action is cost effective and
provides for the protection of human health and the environment. Two factors greatly
increased the cost effectiveness of the selected remedy. First, the selection of the same
technology for treating PCB/PAH-contaminated soils and VOC-contaminated soils greatly
reduces the overall cost of the remediation. By utilizing one technology, only one set of
start-up costs will be realized and the greater volume of material will help decrease unit
costs. Also, the use of a combined alternative for treating PCB/PAH-contaminated soils
will reduce the overall cost while still providing protectiveness.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment (or resource recovery')
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP).
The selected remedy meets the statutory requirements to utilize permanent solutions
and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practical. Alternative
treatment technologies will be utilized for PCB/PAH-contaminated soil, VOC-contaminated
soil, and VOC-contaminated leachate. Due to the location, the lack of identifiable source
areas, and the heterogenetic physical characteristics of the contaminated material, treatment
alternatives were not practical for the lead-contaminated soil so, therefore, a containment
alternative will be utilized.
For PCB/PAH-contaminated soils, Alternative #P9, thermal desorption, provides the
most long-term effectiveness and permanence by treating the contaminated soils.
Alternative #P8, soil washing, also provides long-term effectiveness and permanence by
treating the contaminated soils. However, it is questionable whether soil washing can
remove as great a level of contaminants as thermal desorption. Alternative #P2, soil cover
does not remove any of the PCB/PAH contamination from the soil. However, if the soil
cover is properly maintained over time, it should provide some long-term effectiveness. No
30
-------
action provides no long term effectiveness or permanence. The combination of Alternative
#P9 and #P2 provides long-term effectiveness and permanence by treating the highly
contaminated soils, but will require long-term maintenance of the soil cover to insure long-
term effectiveness of the soil cover over less contaminated soils.
For VOC-contaminated soils, Alternative #V8, thermal desorption will provide long-
term effectiveness and permanence by removing the VOC contamination from the soil.
Alternative. #V9, ex situ vapor extraction, would provide long-term effectiveness and
permanence by removing the VOC contamination from the soil. Alternatives #V4 and
#V8, bioremediation and soil washing, if implemented successfully, would also permanently
remove VOCs from contaminated soils. However, some uncertainty does exist concerning
these technologies ability to fully treat the soils. No action provides no long-term
effectiveness or permanence.
For lead-contaminated soils, Alternative #L7, off-site disposal, would provide long-
term effectiveness and permanence by removing all soils above the remediation goal.
Alternative #L3, capping of contaminated material, would provide long-term effectiveness
and permanence by preventing contact with the contaminated soils and preventing the
potential leaching of lead contamination to the underlying ground water. Maintenance of
the cap would be required to insure this long-term effectiveness. Alternative #L6,
solidification, would provide long-term effectiveness and permanence by placing lead-
contaminated soils in a solid matrix. This matrix would prevent the potential leaching of
lead to ground water. However, due the extremely heterogenic nature of soils at the site,
it is questionable whether such a matrix could provide long-term stability. Alternative #L2,
soil cover would provide long-term effectiveness by preventing contact with contaminated
soils. No action would provide no long-term effectiveness or permanence. A combination
of alternatives #L2 and #L3, a modified soil cover/cap should provide long-term
effectiveness by preventing contact with contaminated material and limiting the potential
leaching of lead-contaminated material to ground water. This limiting of leaching as
compared to the prevention of leaching provided by alternative #L3 should be sufficiently
protective based on the low leaching potential of the lead contaminated material at UOP
as demonstrated by the results of teachability testing.
For VOC-contaminated leachate, Alternative #LEACHATE2 provides long-term
effectiveness and permanence by removing and treating VOCs present in the leachate. The
protectiveness of this action to ground water and surface water will be evaluated upon
completion of this source removal action. No action provides no long-term effectiveness or
permanence.
Alternative #P9, thermal desorption reduces the toxicity, mobility and volume of
PCB/PAH-contaminated soils through treatment. Thermal desorption separates
contaminants from soil allowing for the easy destruction of those contaminants. Treatability
studies have demonstrated that thermal desorption can effectively treat site soils. Alternative
#P8, soil washing, also treats PCB/PAH-contaminated soils to reduce toxicity, mobility, and
volume. Soil washing uses an organic solvent to remove the contaminants. A treatability
study performed with the soil washing technology showed that it may have some difficulty
removing low levels of contaminants. Alternatives #P1, no action, and #P2, soil cover, do
31
-------
not utilize treatment to reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume. The combination of
alternatives #P2 and #P9 retains the use of treatment to reduce toxicity, mobility and
volume.
Alternatives #V8, thermal desorption, and #V9, ex situ vapor extraction, reduce
toxicity, mobility and volume by treatment. Both these technologies separate VOC
contamination from soil which allows for easy destruction of the contaminant of concern.
Alternative #V4, bioremediation, and #V7, soil washing, can reduce toxicity, mobility, and
volume by treatment if they work effectively. However, both these technologies are
innovative and some question exists if they could reduce levels of contamination to
acceptable levels. No action does not provide any treatment
Alternative #L6, solidification, does provide treatment to lead-contaminated soil.
This treatment would reduce mobility of the lead, however, it would increase the volume
of lead contaminated material. No other alternative provides treatment to the lead
contaminated soil. Alternative #13, capping, would reduce mobility by preventing the
leaching of lead-contaminated materials. The combination of alternatives #L2 and #L3
would reduce the mobility of lead-contaminated material but not through treatment.
VOC-contaminated leachate will be treated in Alternative #LEACHATE2 reducing
the toxicity, mobility and volume of the contaminants. Alternative # LEACHATE 1 provides
no treatment.
No action for PCB/PAH-contaminated soils would have no short-term effects but
current levels of PCBs and PAHs on .site provide an unacceptable level of risk. All action
alternatives for PCB/PAH-contaminated soils may have some short-term adverse effects.
Many of these relate to the exposure of remediation workers to site contaminants which can
be minimized by following proper health and safety requirements when implementing the
project. The action alternatives also can have short-term effects on soil erosion and
wetlands. These effects can be minimized by following the proper mitigation procedures
that are applicable to this project.
Similar short-term effects are seen for VOC-contaminated soils, lead-contaminated
soils, and VOC-contaminated leachate. Like the. PCB/PAH-contaminated soil, adverse
short-term effects can be mitigated by following applicable guidelines and regulations.
No action is the most easily implemented alternative for PCB/PAH-contaminated
soil. Alternative #P2, soil cover, would be fairly easy to implement. Soil erosion prevention
would have to be considered during implementation. Alternative #P9, thermal desorption,
is a fairly complex, innovative technology and could have some operational difficulties.
However, thermal desorption is a quickly developing technology whose use is becoming
fairly common-place. Alternative #P8, soil washing, also is an innovative technology. Soil
washing utilizes a very complex treatment train that could lead to difficulty in its
implementation. A combination of alternatives #P2 and #P9 should be as easy to
implement as either alternative by itself.
No action is the most easily implemented alternative for VOC-contaminated soils.
Alternative #V9, ex situ vapor extraction would be fairly easy to implement. The most
difficult task with Alternative #V9 would be the capture of fugitive VOC emissions.
32
-------
However, this can be addressed fairly easily by containing the remediation system in some
type of structure. Alternative #V8, thermal desorption, is a technology commonly used to
treat contaminants similar to those found in the VOC-contaminated soil. Alternative #V7,
soil washing, could be difficult to implement for VOC-contaminated soils for the same
reason it is difficult to implement for PCB/PAH-contaminated soils. Alternative #V4,
bioremediation, is an innovative technology that relies on the activity of microbes to degrade
organic contaminants. The amount of biological activity is highly dependent on maintaining
a highly controlled environment for the microbes to function. The difficulty in maintaining
this environment leads to difficulty in properly implementing this technology.
Alternative #L1, no action, is the easiest alternative to implement. Soil cover would
also be fairly easy to implement. This alternative would need to meet wetland and soil
erosion requirements during implementation. Alternative #L3 would also be fairly easy to
implement and also would have to meet wetlands and soil erosion requirements.
Alternative #L7, excavation and off-site disposal would be relatively easy to implement. In
addition to the soil erosion and wetlands questions like that of alternatives #L2 and #L3,
this alternative would have to consider the logistical questions related to the large number
of trucks that would be required to implement this alternative. A combination of
alternatives #L2 and #13 should be no more difficult to implement than either of the
individual alternatives.
The present worth cost of Alternative #P1 is $40,000. The present worth cost of
Alternative #P2 is $550,000. Alternative #P8's present worth cost is $8.3 M. Alternative
#P9's present worth cost is $11.1 M. The combined alternative of #P2 and #P9 has a
present worth cost of $5.6 M.
The present worth of Alternative #V1 is $40,000. Alternative #V9, ex. situ, vapor
extraction, has a present worth cost of $1.9 M. Alternative #V4, bioremediation, has a
present worth cost of $22 M. The present worth cost of Alternative #V7, soil washing, is
$4.0 M. The present worth cost of Alternative #V8, thermal desorption, is $5.1 M. If
alternative #P9 is selected for treating PCB/PAH-contaminated soils, the cost of Alternative
#V8 is reduced to $2 M.
All these criteria played some role in determining which alternatives were selected.
For the selection of the combination of Alternative #P2 and Alternative #P9, cost played
a very significant factor. It was determined that great cost saving could be realized using
a combined alternative while still providing an ample margin of protectiveness, still utilize
treatment, and be fairly easy to implement. For VOC-contaminated soil, cost also played
a critical role. By selecting Alternative #V8, thermal desorption, the same technology
selected for PCB/PAH contaminated soils, tremendous cost savings were realized while still
providing protectiveness, treatment, and implementability. Long-term effectiveness provided
the main thrust for selecting the combination of alternatives #L2 and #L3 for lead-
contaminated soil. This combination was the remedy that appeared to have the greatest
probability of providing long-term effectiveness and permanence. Like the selection of the
lead alternative, long-term effectiveness and permanence was the main factor leading to the
selection of Alternative #LEACHATE2.
33
-------
The U.S. EPA played an important role in shaping the remedy presented here.
Based on comments received from the EPA during the initial public comment period and
during preparation of the second proposed plan several alterations were made to the
selected remedy. The U.S. EPA concurs with the remedy selected in this ROD.
An opportunity for community involvement was provided in the remedy selection
process detailed in this ROD. Comments received are addressed in the Responsiveness
Summary.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The remedy selected in this ROD meets the statutory preference for treatment as a
principle element. Treatment is utilized for several of the principal threats present at the
site. Thermal desorption will be used to treat soils contaminated with high levels of PCBs
and PAHs. Thermal desorption will also be used to treat soil contaminated with high levels
of VOCs that act as a source of contamination to ground water and surface water. Also,
treatment will be used for VOC-contaminated leachate that also acts as a source of
contamination to ground water and surface water. Soil cover/capping, a containment
remedy was the selected remedial alterative for lead-contaminated soil. A containment
strategy was chosen over a treatment remedy because the cost associated with lead removal
was high compared to the added risk reduction that would be achieved by this removal.
11. Documentation of Significant Changes
Several modification were made to the proposed plan that was issued in August 1992.
These modifications were based on comments received from the U.S. EPA and discussions
held between the NJDEPE and U.S. EPA. These modifications were all included in the
proposed plan released on May 3, 1993. The modifications are as follows:
1. The remedy selected in this ROD is an interim remedy. Upon completion of the
selected remedy, an evaluation will have to be performed to determine what final remedy
will be selected for this operable unit of the site. This evaluation will determine if the
VOC-contaminated soil treatment and leachate removal were sufficient to protect the
surface water quality of Ackerman's Creek and ground water. If these actions were
protective, no further action would be required. If these actions were not protective, further
remedial actions pertaining to VOC-contaminated soil and ground water would be required.
34
-------
2. The originally proposed plan included a ground water remedy. The second proposed
plan and the ROD consider this remedy to be strictly for source areas/leachate. The need
for a full ground water remedy will be determined upon completion of this source removal.
3. Notification that Toxic Substance and Control Act (TSCA) landfill requirements
would be waived was explicitly stated in the second proposed plan.
4. All lead-contaminated soil will be contained on-site. No lead-contaminated soil
would be excavated and disposed off-site as included in the first proposed plan. It was
determined that little added risk reduction would be achieved by this removal.
5. A risk-based remediation goal was established for 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane. This
remediation level was developed by the U.S. EPA and was more stringent that the
NJDEPE-developed cleanup goal.
Based on these changes, a second proposed plan was released to the public and a
second public comment period was held. No public comments were received which
warranted a change in the remedy presented in the second Proposed Plan.
35
-------
K;,^ I
PATERSON PLANK ROAD
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
STREAM CHANNELS
(AREA 4)
WASTEWATER
K LAGOONS (AREA 3)
ACKERMAN'S CREEK
MANOR ROAD
-------
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
FOLLOWS MID-CHANNEL
LCGCND
o < * SOIL BORING LOCATION
• MONITORING WELL LOCATION
WHERE SOIL DATA COLLECTED
^, SURrACE SAMPLE LOCATION (12/89)
i—I TEST PIT LOCATION (11/90)
© SURFACE SAMPLE LOCATION (11/90)
\
\
0 200 400
"SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE
ENSR CONSUL "NC te ENGINEERING
SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
UOP SITE
EAST RUTHERFORD. N.J.
J.E.B.
6/92-rp I QiHft-
1MU4C1 *
OIHft
-------
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
FOLLOWS MID-CHANNEL
« MONITORING WELL LOCAnON
S.I-SHALLOW. 0-OEEP
O MONITORING WELL INSTALLED
1991 AS PART OF IRM •
INVESTIGATION
i STAFF GAUGE LOCATION
•— TEST PIT LOCATION
WHERE CROUNOWATER SAMPLE
WERE TAKEN
----- \
\
0 200 400
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE:
ENSR CONSULTING * ENGINEERING
MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS
UOP SITE
EAST RUTHERFORD. N.J.
K.P.B.
6/92-FD | QIB6-007-795
-------
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
FOLLOWS MID-CHANNEL
o • » SOIL BORING LOCATION
• MONITORING WELL LOCATION
WHERE SOIL DATA COLLECTED
( ) CONCENTRATION IN mg/Vg
\
\
0 _?bo 400
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE
CONSULIINC &
- a. t.^uinclKINO
DNCENTRATIOh OF TOTAL VOC IN
SURFACE SOIL
UOP SITE
EAST RUTHERFORD. N.J.
-------
/
A
o
(£
Ot<1)
(
-------
PROPERTY OOUNDARY
FOLLOWS MIO-CHANNEL
LEGEND
O,» MONITORING WELL LOCATION
( ) MAXIMUM VOC CONCENTRATION (mg/hq)
— TEST PIT LOCATION
\
\
0 200 400
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE
ENSR CONSUL UNO k ENGINEERING
CONCENTRATIONS OF TOTAL VOCs
IN GROUND WATER
HOP SITE
EAST RUTHERFORD. N.J.
±
OI06-00?-29Sl
-------
II
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
FOLLOWS MID-CHANNEL
LEGEND
. * SOIL BORING LOCATION
• MONITORING WELL LOCATION
WHERE SOIL DATA COLLECTED
-> SURFACE SAMPLE LOCATION (12/89)
( ) CONCENTRATION IN trig/kg
\
\
0 200 400
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE
EIKR
ENSR CONSUL TING & ENGINEERING
CONCENTRATION OF PCB IN
SURFACE SOIL
UOP SITE
EAST RUTHERFORD. N.J.
J.E.B.
6/92-r6 | QIB6-002-2')!)
-------
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
FOLLOWS MID-CHANNEL
LEGO1Q
a . * SOIL BORING LOCATION
• MONITORING WELL LOCATION
WHERE SOIL DATA COLLECTED
4- SURFACE SAMPLE LOCATION (12/89)
( ) CONCENTRATION IN mg/kg
\
\
0 200 400
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE
ENSR CONSULTING & ENGINEERING
:ONCENTRATION OF TOTAL CARCINOGENIC
PAH IN SURFACE SOIL
UOP SITE
EAST RUTHERFORD. N.J.
J.E.B.
/I |T.t/.
TpSoTr^^r*
I 0166-1
6/92-rO | OI66-002-29S
-------
/
"0oo'
PROPCRtY BOUNDARY
FOLLOWS MID-CHANNEL
0.O.* SOIL BORING LOCATION
• MONITORING WELL LOCATION
WHERE SOIL DATA COLLECTED
( ) CONCENTRATION IN mg/kg
\
\
SCALE IN FEE I
FIGURE
*>J
\\
EKX
ENSR CONSUL fINC fc ENGINEERING
CONCENTRATIONS OF LEAD
SURFACE SOIL
UOP SITE
EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J.
K.P.B. I 6/92-ro I 0186-OC
IN
>?-;>9',
-------
(NO/OB
INO/O
CXMVO) •(NO/0)
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
FOLLOWS MID-CHANNEL
LEGEND
0.» SOIL DOPING LOCATION
• MONITORING WELL LOCATION
* SURFACE SAMPLE LOCAHON
(_/_) PCB/rOTAL CARCINOGENIC PAH
CONCENTRATIONS (mg/kg)
V//A REMEDIATION AREA
\
\
0 200 400
I I I
SCALE IN FEET
flGURE
10
ENSR CONSUL UNO «e I NUINEERINC
PCB/PAH REMEDIATION AREAS
UOP SITE
EAST RUTHERFORD. N.J.
6/'J?
a
-------
11—
JT
—
PROPCHTY BOUNDARY
FOLLOWS UIO- CHANNEL
LECEHD
o.» SOIL BORING LOCATION
• MONITORING WCLL LOCATION
MIERE SOIL DATA COLLECTED
( ) VOC CONCENTRATION IN mq/kg
REMEDIATION AREA:
I WAI SURFACE SOIL
VJSA SUBSURFACE SOIL
SURFACE ft SUBSURFACE SOIL
NOTE:
ONLY SURFACE SOIL CONCENTRATIONS
ARC SHOWN.
\
\
0 200 400
SCALE IN FEET
FICUR
ENSR CONSUL IING
-------
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
FOLLOWS MID-CHANNEL
LEGEND
0.0. » SOIL BORING LOCAtlON
• MONITORING WELL LOCATION
WHERE SOIL DATA COUEC1ED
( ) LEAD CONCENTRATION IN mq/Vq
REMEDIATION AREA
\
\
0 300 400
SCALE IN~FECI
nGURE JVttM (Q.
ENSt
ENSR CONSUL IINC A
LEAD REMEDIATION AREA
UOP SITE
EAST RUTHERFORD. N.J.
K.p.e.
6/9?-ro
I oia
-------
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
FOLLOWS MID-CHANNEL
LECEJ1Q
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
VOC CONCCNTRATION IN mg/l
TEST PIT LOCATION
CXCAVATION AREA. VOC >tmg/l
EXCAVATION AREA. VOC >1On
-------
TADLE Ijp
SUMMAim INDICATOR CHEMICALS UOP SITE,
EAST RUTHERFORD, M.J.
ground Water
i
H
vl
Compound
Arsenic
BenzeiM
010(2 ethylnexyl)
phthalate
Carcinogenic PAH
Chromium
1,2-Dlphenylhydrazlne
PCB
1,1.2,2-
Tetrachloroethane
cadmium
Chlorobanzene
Cyanide
1,2-Dlchlorobenzene
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Toluene
Zinc
IS Rank*
2
3
14
-
C
4
1
5
19
3
c
12
16
22
8
6
14
Frequency of
• Detection
25/42
25/42
11/42
not found
12/42
3/37
5/30
4/42
16/42
19/42
8/27
9/42
29/42
1/31
' 4/15
25/42
37/42
surface Soli
IS Hank/1
Frequency of
Detection
Carcinogens
2
7
12
4,3,5
c
1
6
23/36
11/52
23/36
16/36, 4/36, 15/36
47/47
not found
20/30
4/52
Non Carcinogens
6
12
c
7
1
4
8
5
13/35
14/52
22/35
14/37
37/37
22/23
not found
38/52
38/38
Subsurface soils
IS Rank*3
1
9
a
4,2,5
c
-
3
6
. 6
10
c
9
3
1
-
12
5
Frequency of
Detection
20/33
13/50 '
23/34
5/34, 7/34, 6/34
45/45
not found
18/31
1/50
11/34
22/50
21/34
13/36
35/35
22/26
not found
37/50 *•
35/35
a. Arsenic was present In soil at representative concentrations below New Jersey background concentrations.
b. Dlbenzola.hlanthracene (soil ranks - 4,4), Benzo[ajpyrenc (soil ranks - 3.2). and Benzofajanthracene (soil rariks
• 5,5) were considered total 'carcinogenic PRH" for the purposes of indicator compound selection.
c. Compounds do not have constants for use in the hazard calculation but will be'considered due to the fact
that these compounds were found more often than others.
d. 15 rank bailed on maximum detected concentration.
-------
TABLE 2
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR VISITORS AND TRESPASSERS
UOP SITE, EAST RUTHERFORD, NJ
Media
Exposure Pathway
Exposure Point
Indicator Chemicals of Concern
Air
Inhalation of
volatlles
Inhalation of
entrained soils
Near stream channels
Non-vegetated, unpaved
areas
Benzene, MCB, Toluene,
1,2,-dlphenylhydrazlne,
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroe thane
BEHP, PAH Chromium, PCB, Arsenic,
Mercury, Cyanide, 1,2-DCB, Lead,
Zinc, Cadmium
Ground Water
Source of airborne
volatiles
Stream channels
See air, volatlles
Soils
Ingestlon
Source of entrained
materials
Soils
Non-vegetated, unpaved
BEHP, PAH Chromium, PCB, Arsenic,
Mercury, Cyanide, 1,2-DCB, -Lead,
Zinc, Cadmium
See air, entrained soils
-------
TABLE 3
DOSE-RESPONSE VALUES FOR INDICATOR CHEMICALS
UOP SITE, EAST RUTHERFORD, NJ
Compound
CARCINOGENIC ASSESSMENT
Slope Ingestion Slope Inhalation
(mg/kg day)"1 (mg/kg day)'1
1,2-
Dtphenylhydrazine
OTHER TOXIC EFFECTS
Rfd Ingestion Rfc Inhalation
(mg/kg day) (mg/kg day)
Arsenic 1.5x10° 1.8x10°
Benzene 2.9X10"2 2. 9x10*2
BEHP 6.84x10°
Carcinogenic PAH l.iSxlO*1 6.11x10°
Cadmium --• 6.1x10°
Chromium (III) — . —
Chromium (IV) --- 4.1xlOn
PCB 4.34x10°
MCB -•- ---
Cyanide — —
1,2 DCB
Lead — i
1x10°
—
.2x10-2
—
lxlO-3(food)
1x10°
5x10°
—
2.7x10-2
2x10-2
9x10-2
1.4x10°*
—
•--
"•
—
. —
5.1x10°
—
—
5.7x10°
—
4x10-2
4.3x10'**
8x10
-i
-------
TABLE 3 (continued)
Compound
CARCINOGENIC ASSESSMENT
Slope Ingestion Slope Inhalation
(mg/kg day)"1 (mg/kg day)'1
OTHER TOXIC EFFECTS
Rfd Ingestion Rfc Inhalation
(mg/kg day) (mg/kg day)
1,1,2,2
Tetrachloroethane 2X10"1
Mercury(a) —
If'
Nickel
Toluene
Zinc
'1
2X10
1.19x10°
2xl(r3
2xl(T2
2X10'1
5.1xlO-J
1x10°
lxl
-------
CARCINOGENIC RISK FROM INDICATOR CHEMICALS
PRESENT SITE USE SCENARIO
UOP SITE, EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J.
Riali: Soilb
Risk: Airc
hydrazine
1.1,2.2-tetra- d
chloroethane
3.5xlO-n
Risk: Total
Compound
Benzene
BEHP£
Chromium (VI)
PAH
PCB£
Arsenic
Cadmium
1,2-diphenyl-
Haximum
d
3.56xlO-9
e
2.74xlO~5
6.13xlO-5
3.91xlO~8
e
d
Average .
d
3.74xlO~10
e
1. 32x10-*
2.73x10-*
3
e
d
4.7 x 10-11
3.3xlO-12
6.2xlO-8
5.2xlO'9
2.0xlO-8
9
1.9xlO'9
e.Oxio"11
Maximum
4.7xHTn
3.56xlQ-9
6.2xlO~8
2.74xlO~5
6.14xlO~5
3.91xlO~8
1.9xlO-9
8.0xlO~n
Average
4.7X10'11
3.78xlO-10
6.2xl(T8
1.32xlO-6
2.75xlO~6
9
1.9X10"9
8-OxlQ-11
3.5xlO-n ' 3.5xlO-n
Total Cancer Risk: 8.99xlO~5 4.19xlO~6
a. Risk values should be regarded as excess chance of getting cancer, with unity being
complete certainty. Thus 3xlO~9 is three chances in 1,000,000,000.
b. Sum of ingestion and absorption intake. Maximum values calculated from maximum detected
concentration of- Indicator Chenical at the site. Average intake calculated using
arithmetic mean of abore-detection-limit samples from surface soil.
c. Because entrained naterial is assumed to be generated from a large area of the sige. a
single intake value for dust was calculated using the arithmetic mean of the
above—detection-limit surface soil samples.
d. Benzene, l,2-diphenylhydr«zine. and 1,1.2.2-tetrachloroethane were presumed not to be
present in surface soil.'
e. Chromium and cadmium ire presumed to be non-carcinogenic by the oral route.
f. No potency slope is available for the inhalation route. The oral potency slope was used.
g. Only maximum arsenic level was assessed.
Present site use means visitor on site one hour per week twelve months out
of each year. •
-------
CARCINOGENIC.RISK FROM INDICATOR CHEMICALS
FUTURE SITE USE SCENARIO
Compound F
Benzene
BEHP
Chromium (VI)
PAH
PCB
Arsenic
Cadmium
1,2-diphenyl-
hjrdraiine
1.1.2,2-tetra-
chloroe thane
Usk
c.
7.
d.
I.
2.
t
d
c
c
: Dust
49xlO~n
58xlO~?
96x10*
Risk: Air
6.6xIO
~9
2.3xlO~7(e)
-8
-8
1.9x10
7.4x10
f
6.7xlO~9(e)
-8
1.1x10 .
4.9x10
-9
Risk: Total
6.6x10
-9
8.69x10
.-11
-7
2.3x10
1.77x10
-7
3.70x10
f
-7
6.7x10
1.1x10
-9
-8
4.9x10
-9
Total Cancer Risk:
. 8.06x10
-7
a. Riek values are excess chance of getting cancer.
b. "Dust" risk calculated from the sum of ingestion and
absorption intake. Because the outdoor soil which
ultimately contributes to indoor dust is assumed to be
transported from a large area of the site, only one
"average" value of contaminant intake via dust and air was
calculated for this scenario.
c. Benzene 1,2 diphenylhdadrazine. -and 1.1,2,2,
tetrachloroethene are not present'in surface soil.
d. Chromium and cadmium are not carcinogenic by the oral route
and not absorbed, dermally.
e. Oral potency slope used for inhalation exposures.
f. Only maximum arsenic concentration was assessed.
Future site use mean employee working at the site.
-------
TABLE
CAflCIMOGENIC RISK FROM INDICATOR CHEMICALS8
CONSTRUCTION WORKER SCENARIO
UOP SITE. EAST RUTHERFORD, NJ
Competing
Benzene
BE HP
PAHa
PCBa
Arsenic
Chroniua (VI)
Cadmium
o> 1.1.2.2-TCA
1
M
M
Maximua
10-Month. itHjantb
f
2.76E-10
1.78E-06
4.03E-06
S.22C-08
d
d
f
8.17E-10
6.37E-09
1.09C-06
2.11E-06
9.47E-08
d
d
1.79E-09
tAi
Average
10-Month 2-HonEh
t
2.91E-11
2.76E-08
4.08E-08
9
d
d
£
3.71E-11
2.40E-10
4.63C-08
1.02E-07
9
d
d
3.57E-11
Risk:
AirC
10-Month
2.59E-10
1.51E-12
2.38E-09
9.34E-09
9
2.86E-08
8.47E-10
2.15E-10
2=Monlb
1.56E-OB
2.46E-11
2.83C-09
1.18E-08
9
1.96E-07
1.09E-09
2 . 29E-OB
Sunned Risk :
Risk:
Total*
Maximum
1.66E-08
6.67E-09 '
2.87E-06
6.16E-06
1.47E-07
2.25E-07
1.94E-09
ixiflEdia
9.45E-06
Average
1.59E-08
2.9SE-10
7.91E-08
1.64E-07
9
2.25E-07
1.94E-09
2.J2EJ8
5.09E-07
'Risk values should be regarded as excess chance of getting cancer, with unity being complete certainty.
Thus 3 x 10"' is three chances in 1,000,000-,000.
''Sum of ingestion and absorption Intake. Maximum values calculated from maximum detected concentration
of Indicator Chemical at the site. Average intake calculated using arithmetic mean of samples from surface
soil (for 10 month) or the weighted average of the subsurface and surface soil (for 2 month).
cBecauae entrained material is assumed to be generated from a large area of the site, a single intake value
for dust was calculated using the arithmetic mean of the surface soil samples (for 10 month) or the weighted
average of the subsurface and surface soil (for 2 month).
^Chromium VI and cadmium are presumed to be carcinogenic via inhalation only.
eTotal 12-month risk to-construction workers (10 month and 2 month scenarios combined).
ln ire jssiunttd not to be present and available (or ingestion and dermal absorption from the surface soil.
-------
•TABLE «•£ "7
Surface Soil PCB and PAH Concentrations
• With and Without December 1989 Samples
Area 5
UOP Site
East Rutherford, NJ
Surface Soil Concentrations, mq/kq_
Pre 1989'
Compound•
PCB
Carcinogenic
PAH
Maximum
480
80.6
Representative
21.4
3.9
Including 1989
(21
Maximum Representative
1,000 • 68.6
1,304
51.2
Notes: "' Concentrations as reported in the Human Health Risk
Assessment
121 Concentrations include supplemental samples collected
in December 1989
r:\pub*\proj«ctc\018£002\29S.«l
1-39
-------
Care. PAH
Carcinogenic PAH and PCB Risk' Levels
UOP Site
East Rutherford, NJ
Risk
Compound
PCB
Scenario Maximum, Cone.
Present
Future
Const. Wkr.
Present
Future
Const. Wkr.
N/A = Not Applicable
4.40 x 10-1
N/A
4.64 x ID'5
1.28 x 10"1
N/A
1.28 x 1(TS
Average Cone.
1.73 x ID'5
2.32 X ID'6
1.04 x ID'*
'8.82 x ID'6
1.19 x lO'6
5.26 x lO'7
r:\pub»\proj«ct«\0166002\.295.«l .a
1-40
-------
TABLE 4V 7
NON-CARCINOGEN1C RISK FROM INDICATOR CHEMICALS*
PRESENT SITE USE SCENARIO
UOP SITE, EAST RUTHERFORD. N.J.
Hazard Index
Soilb
Compound
BEHP
Chromium III
Chromium VI
MCB
Cyanides
1,2-DCB
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
Cadmium
Arsenic
Toluene
Maximum
4.17xlO"5
1
1
7
2
S
2
3
6
3
.13x10
.18x10
e
.45x10
.79x10
.33x10
.09x10
.23x10
.56x10
.58x10
e
-3
-2
-4
-3
-1
-3
-3
-3
-4
Average
4.39xlO~6
5
5
5
8
6
5
4
5
.40x10
.69x10
e
.19x10
.34x10
.98x10
.17x10
.05x10
.68x10
f
e
-5
-4
-5
-5
-2
-4
-4
-4
Hazard
Index
Air«=
2.0xlO"8(d)
7.9xlO"5
3.0xlO~7(d)
2.7xlO~6
3.7xlO~7(d)
1.3xlO~6
1.7xlO~3
3.8xlO~6(d)
6-lxlO"5
3.0xlO~7(d)
f
1.0*10~7
Hazard Index
Total
Maximum
4.17xlO"5
9
5
2
1
"2
5
2
3
6
3
.05xlO~5
.10xlO~7
.70xlO"6
.79xlO~4
.79xlO~3
.32X10'1
.09xlO~3
.29xlO"3
-56xlO~3
.58xlO"4
l.OxlQ"7
Ave r agg
4.41xlO~
1.
5.
2.
5.
8.
7.
33xlO~4
69xlO~4
70x!0"6
23xlO~5
47xlO"5
15xlO"2
• 5.21xlO"4
4.66xlO~4
5.
,68xlO~4
f
1.00x10"
Summed HI
5.62x10
7.20x10
-2
1.85x10
-3
5.50x10
-1
7.39x10
-2
a. Risks are given as hazard indices. A value less than 1
indicates no risk. . • "
b. Sum of ingestion and absorption intake. Maximum values
calculated from maximum detected concentration of Indicator
Chemical at the site. Average intake calculated using
arithmetic mean of above-detection-limit samples from surface
soil.
c. Because entrained material is assumed to be generated from a
large area of the cite, a single intake, value for dust was
calculated using the arithmetic 'mean of the
above-detection-limit surface soil samples.
d. Oral AIC used for inhalation exposures.
e. MCB and toluene are assumed to not be present and available for
contact in surface soil.
f. Only maximum concentration of arsenic was assessed.
9012F 6020-006-245
8-6
-------
TABLE
NOH-CARCINOGENIC RISK FROM INDICATOR CHEMICALS*
FUTURE SITE USE SCENARIO
Compound
BEHP
Chromium III
Chromium VI
MCB
Cyanides
1,2-DCB
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
Cadmium
Arsenic
Toluene
Summed HI
.Hazard
Index:
Dustb
8.76xlO~7 "
7.42xlO~7
7.79xlO~6
d
1.49xlO~6
4.23xlO~6
9.60xlO~4 .
1.06xlO-5
4.21xlO~6
7.80xlO~6
e
d
9.98xlO~3
Hazard
Index:
7.10xlO-8(c)
4.10xlO-5
1.10xlO~6(c)
5.40xlO-5
1.90xlO~7(c)
6.50xO~7
8.80xlO-4
2.00xlO~6(c}
3.20x10-5
1.10xlO-6(c)
e
2.06xlO~6
l.OlxlO-3
Hazard
Index:
Total
9.47xlO~7
4.17xlO-5
8.89xlO-6
5.40xlO-5
. 1.68xlO~6
4.88xlO-6
1.84xlO-3
1.26xlO-5
3.62x10-5
8-90xlO~6
e
2.06xlO-6
2.01xlO-3
a. Risk are given as hazard indices. A value less than 1 indicates
no risk.
b. "Dust" risk calculated from sum of ingestion and absorption
intake. Because the outdoor soil which ultimately contributes to
indoor dust is assumed to be transported from a large area of the
site, only one "average" value of contaminant intake via dust and
air was calculated for this scenario.
c. Oral AIC used for inhalation exposures.
d. MCB and toluene are assumed to not be present and available for
contact in surface soil.
e. Only maximum concentration of arsenic was assessed.
8-7
9012F 6020-006-245
-------
TABLE //
HAZARD INDICES TOR INDICATOR CHEMICALS*
CONSTRUCTION WORKER SCENARIO
UOP SITE, EAST RUTHERfORD, NJ
CD
Compound
MCB
Cyanides
1,2-DCB
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
Toluene
Chromium (III)
Chromium (VI)
Cadmium
Maximum
10-Month
f
1.14E-05
4.01E-05 .
8.S3C-03
3.28E-05
5.02C-05
f
1.80E-05
1.89E-04
1.05E-04
JtJlflntb
4.S5E-06
4.90E-06
7.47E-06
2.89E-03
1.36C-04
3.86E-05
7.66E-06
1.35E-05
1.43E-04
2.40E-05
Average
10-Month
f
7.97E-07
1.70E-06
8.30E-04
6.95E-06
4.83E-06
f
6.43E-07
6.77E-06
6.74E-06
,
ZdHaolh
1.48E-07
2.71E-07
2.22E-07
4.16E-04
8.51E-06
3.76E-06
1.88E-07
7.71E-07
8.12E-06
1.51E-06
dazaro
Ai
IflzMojUh .
8.27 x 10
8.56 x 10"?
2.89 x 10"6
3.90 x 10"3
3.43 x 10"4
1.39 x 10"4
1.04 x 10~5
1.82 x 10"4
d
d
Summed
inaex:
rc
3.02 x 10"3
1.95 x 10"6
2.97 x 10~6
1.12 x 10"2
2.59 x 10"3
6.22 x 10"4
2.08 x 10"4
1.25 x 10"3
d
d
Hazard Index =
Hazard Index:
Total6
Maximum
3.11E-03
1.91E-05
5.34E-05
2.65E-02
3.10E-03
8.50E-04
2.26E-04
1.43E-03
3.32E-04
1.29E-04
3.58E-02
Average
3.10E-03
3.87E-06
7.78E-06
1.63E-02
2.95E-03
7.70E-04
2.18E-04
1 . 4 3C-0 3
1.49E-05
8.25E-06
2.48E-02
*Rlsks are given as hazard indices. A value less than 1 indicates no risk.
''Sun of ingeatlon and -absorption intake. Maximum values calculated from maximum detected concentration
of Indicator Chemical at the site. Average intake calculated using arithmetic mean of samples from surface
soil (for 10 month) or the weighted average of the surface and subsurface soils (for 2 month).
°Because entrained material is assumed to be generated from a large area of the site, a single intake
value for dust was calculated using the arithmetic mean of the surface soil samples (for 10 month) and
the weighted average of the surface and subsurface soil samples (for 2 month).
^Chromium (VI) and cadmium are presumed to be carcinogenic via inhalation.
*I..t«. I.1-«oiil h risk to construction workers (10 month and 2 month scenarios combined).
-------
Table 12
Remediation Goals
Contaminant Remediation Goal, ppm
For Surface Soil:
Carcinogenic PAHs
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4
Benzo(a)anthracene 4
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.66
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4
Chrysene 40
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.66
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 4
PCB 2
Lead 600
For All Soils:
VOCs (total) 1000
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 21
Leachate Delineation Area
Contaminant Delineation Criteria, ppm
VOCs (total) 10 mg/1
VOCs (individual) 1 mg/1
RPCE\BFCM\UOP(H7JBF4 June 93
------- |