United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-92/185
September 1992
c/EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Industrial Latex, NJ
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION i. REPORT NO. 2.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R02-92/185
4. TOe and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Industrial Latex, NJ
First Remedial Action - Subsequent to follow
7. AuthorW
». Performing Orgainlatlon Neme end Addreae
12. Sponsoring OrgenizeUon Name and Addrau
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
3. Recipient* Accession No.
6. Report Dele
09/30/92
6.
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
10. Pro|ect/T«k/Wofk Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
13. Type of Report ft Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
PB93-963824
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 wonU)
The 9.67-acre Industrial Latex site is a chemical adhesives and natural and synthetic
rubber compounds manufacturer in Wellington, Bergen County, New Jersey. Land use in
the area is predominantly residential, industrial, and recreational, with a wetland
area located near the northeast corner of the site. The estimated 17,500 people who
reside within 1 mile of the site used four of the five public water supply wells as
their drinking water supply; however, these wells have been closed since 1985 because
of ground water contamination. From 1951 to 1980, the Industrial Latex Corporation
manufactured both chemical adhesives and natural and synthetic rubber compounds.
Adhesives were initially formulated using vegetable protein in a solvent base.
Solvents used in the process included acetone, heptane, hexane, methyl ethyl ketone
(MEK), and methylene chloride. To reduce flammability, PCBs were introduced as a fire
retardant. In the late 1970's, solvent-based adhesives were replaced by water-based
latex adhesives. .Poor operational procedures and onsite waste disposal practices,
including chemical dumping, resulted in widespread areas of surface and subsurface
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. DMcriptora
Record of Decision - Industrial Latex, NJ
First Remedial Action - Subsequent to follow
Contaminated Media: soil, sediment, sludge, debris -
Key Contaminants: VOCs (PCE, TCE, toluene, xylenes), other organics (PAHs, PCBs,
pesticides, phenols), metals (arsenic, lead)
HL MenWere/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSAT! Held/Group
18. AvallabUHy Statement
1». Security CUM (This Report)
None
20. Security CUss (This Pege)
None
21. No. of Pege*
70
22. Price
(See ANSLZ39.18)
See Instruction* on Re wne
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NT18-3S)
Depertnent of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-92/185
Industrial Latex, NJ
First Remedial Action - Subsequent to follow
Abstract (Continued)
contamination. In 1980, the state conducted a site inspection and found approximately
250 leaking drums of various chemical compounds. The state discovered that VOCs and
materials contaminated with PCBs were disposed of .in an onsite sanitary septic system.
After site operations ceased in 1983, the state conducted a second site inspection and
discovered approximately 1,600 leaking and open drums. Analyses of the drums' contents
revealed the presence of numerous VOCs and PCBs. In 1985, the state ordered the site
owner to properly dispose of the drums; however, only about 400 drums were removed. In
1986, EPA initiated a removal action to address the remaining 1,200 drums and 22 USTs at
the site. This ROD addresses the final remedy for the contamination present in the soil,
sediment, buildings and equipment, drums, sludge, septic system, and hardened latex, as
the first of two operable units. A future ROD will address ground water contamination,
as OU2. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil, sediment, sludge, and
debris are VOCs including PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other organics, including PAHs,
PCBs, pesticides, and phenols; and metals, including arsenic and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavating approximately 600 buried
drums with offsite disposal or incineration; dismantling 30 production vats from their
steel supports and draining any remaining material that is not hardened into drums for
offsite disposal or incineration, disposing of the vats in an offsite landfill; removing
the floor drains and demolishing 41,000 square feet of the onsite buildings with offsite
disposal; excavating the septic system along with 800 gallons of associated liquids and
6 cubic yards of sludge with offsite disposal; excavating and treating onsite an
estimated 34,700 cubic yards of contaminated soil and sediment using low thermal
desorption; testing soil to determine the need for stabilization prior to disposal, then,
and backfilling treated material onsite; transporting residuals generated during the
treatment process offsite for disposal or treatment; treating offgases using carbon
adsorption or another appropriate treatment; monitoring air; assessing the wetland area
and performing additional ground water investigations during the remedial design phase;
implementing institutional controls, if necessary and site access restrictions including
fencing. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $17,883,600, which
includes an annual O&M cost of $4,848,700 for 1 year.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Chemical-specific soil clean-up goals, which are based on the EPA Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), include PCBs 1 mg/kg; heptachlor epoxide 0.1 mg/kg;
benzo(a)anthracene 0.4 mg/kg; chrysene 13 mg/kg; bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 46 mg/kg;
indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene 0.2 mg/kg; arsenic 3.6 mg/kg; and lead 500 mg/kg. Building
material contaminated with PCBs greater than 50 mg/kg will be disposed of in accordance
with TSCA/RCRA requirements.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name
Location/State
EPA Region
HRS Score (date)
Industrial Latex
Wallington, Bergen County, New Jersey
II
36.45
ROD
Date Signed
Remedy/ies
Capital Cost
0 & M/year
Present worth
9/30/92
Contaminated soil will be excavated and
treated by low temperature thermal
desorption, and then backfilled on the site.
Buried drums present at the site will be
excavated also, and will be disposed of or
incinerated at an off-site facility. The
vats will be dismantled and disposed of in an
appropriate off-site landfill. Two buildings
on the site will be demolished and also
disposed of in an appropriate off-site
landfill.
$11,263,600 -
$4,848,700
$17,883,600
LEAD
Lead agency U.S. EPA
Primary contact (phone) Paolo Pascetta (212) 264-9001
Secondary contact (phone) Robert McKnight (212) 264-1870
Main PRP(s) N/A
WASTE
Type (metals, PCB, &c)
Medium (soil, g.w., &c)
Origin
Est. quantity cu.yd.
gal.
# drums
etc.
PCB
soil, vats, drums, buildings
Company manufactured chemical
adhesives, and natural and synthetic
rubber compounds
38,000 cu. yd. of soil
800 gallons of liquid and six cu. yd.
of sludge
approx. 600 buried drums and 30 vats
approx. 41,000 sq. ft. of interior
bldg. surfaces (walls and floors) and
an exterior concrete pad
-------
SEP 2 9 1992
Record of Decision for the
Industrial Latex Site
Kathleen C. Callahan, Director
Emergency and Remedial Response Division (2ERRD)
Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff
Regional Administrator (2RA)
Attached for your approval is the Record of Decision (ROD) for
the contaminated soil, vats, and buildings at the Industrial
Latex site. The site is located in Bergen County, New Jersey.
The selected remedial action represents the first of two planned
operable units for the site. This action will address the
contamination present in the soil, vats, and buildings at the
site. The groundwater will be the subject of the second operable
unit.
Contaminated soil will be excavated and treated by low
temperature thermal desorption, and then backfilled on the site.
Buried drums present at the site will be excavated also, and will
be disposed of or incinerated at an off-site facility. The vats
will be dismantled and disposed of in an appropriate off-site
landfill. Two buildings on the site will be demolished and also
disposed of in an appropriate off-site landfill.
The estimated present worth cost to perform the remedial action
at the site is $18 million.
A remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) to
identify the nature and extent of contamination at the site was
completed in July 1992. The results of the RI/FS and the
Proposed Plan for the site were released to the public on July
16, 1992. The 30-day public comment period ended on August 15,
1992. In addition, a public meeting was held on August 10, 1992.
The comments provided by local residents and officials on the
proposed remedial action did not necessitate a modification of
the proposed remedy.
The attached ROD was developed by EPA and has been reviewed by
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy,
and the appropriate offices within Region II. Their input and
comments are reflected in the document.
If you have any questions concerning this ROD, I will be happy to
discuss them at your convenience.
Attachment
NJSB1:NNJS1:MCKNIGHT:6:\USER\SHARE\NJSB1\LATEX_RA.MEM:9/28/9 2
SIDAMON-ERISTOFF
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION
INDUSTRIAL LATEX
Site Name and Location
Industrial Latex
Wellington, Bergen County, New Jersey
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
contaminated soil, vats, buildings, and buried drums at the
Industrial Latex site. The remedial action was chosen in
accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act 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 is based on the
administrative record for the site.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
Industrial Latex site, if not addressed by implementing the
response action selected in this Record of Decision, may present
an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health,
welfare, or the environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
The remedy described in this document represents the first
operable unit for the Industrial Latex site. It addresses the
current and future threats to human health and the environment
associated with the contamination present in the soil, vats,
buildings, and buried drums at the site, and is the final
remedial action for these media. Additional investigation will
be undertaken to characterize the nature and extent of any site-
related groundwater contamination. A subsequent decision
document will address the need for groundwater remediation.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
- Excavation of contaminated soil exceeding remediation goals
above the water table, on-site treatment by low temperature
thermal desorption, and on-site backfilling of the treated
soil;
-------
-2-
- Removal and off-site disposal of contaminated vats in an
approved landfill under the Toxic Substances Control Act and
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act;
- Demolition and off-site disposal of buildings in an
appropriate landfill;
- Excavation and off-site treatment or disposal of buried
drums; and
- Appropriate environmental monitoring to ensure the
effectiveness of the remedy.
Statutory Determinations
The selected 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. This remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable and satisfies the statutory preference
for remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity,
mobility, or volume as a principal element. Subsequent actions
may be necessary to address groundwater contamination at the
site.
Because this remedy will not result in hazardous substances
remaining on the site above health-based levels, the five-year
review will not apply to this action.
lamon-Erisfeff,
Regional Administrator
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
INDUSTRIAL LATEX
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Industrial Latex site is located at 350 Mount Pleasant Avenue
in the Borough of Wallington, Bergen County, New Jersey. It is
situated in a small valley between two northeast-southwest
trending hills. The property encompasses 9.67 acres in a mixed
residential/industrial neighborhood. The site is bordered by a
residential area including an elementary school to the west; a
tractor trailer storage area to the north; the CONRAIL/New Jersey
Transit railroad line to the east; and an outdoor recreational
complex, residences, and an undeveloped lot to the south (Figure
1). The undeveloped lot is owned by the Borough of Wallington
and is utilized for storage (road salt, sand, gravel, and
construction debris), and for composting (grass, leaves, etc.).
The Borough of Wood-Ridge is located directly east of the
railroad line.
The site is southeast of an extensive industrial development
bordering the CONRAIL/New Jersey Transit rail corridor.
Industrial facilities near the site include the Curtiss-Wright
Corporation located in Wood^Ridge and Farmland Dairies in
Wallington. The Curtiss-Wright and Farmland Dairies facilities
are currently undergoing environmental investigations under the
New Jersey Environmental Cleanup Responsibility Act (ECRA).
The majority of the land use within a one-half mile radius of the
Industrial Latex site is residential, while some land is zoned
for commerce and industry. Major residential developments are
closely situated to the east, west, and south of the site.
According to 1990 census data, approximately 17,500 people live
in the Boroughs of Wallington and Wood-Ridge.
Until 1985, the Borough of Wallington had maintained five public
water supply wells within the Borough (Figure 2). Four of these
wells are located within one mile of the site. However, the
wells have been closed since 1985 due to groundwater
contamination of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as
trichloroethene (TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), and trans-1,2-
dichloroethene. The Passaic Valley Water Commission currently
supplies potable water to the Wallington Water Company for
distribution to the Borough.
Two buildings are present on the site. Building 1 housed the
offices and laboratory of the Industrial Latex Corporation and
served as the shipping warehouse. Some chemical processing was
performed in this building. A floor drain runs down the center
of Building 1 discharging to the ground at the rear of the
-------
property. Off-specification product was allegedly dumped in the
floor drain. Four on-site septic tanks were also used for
disposal of chemical wastes: Tanks 1 and 2 are located
immediately adjacent to the southeast side of Building 1 and
Tanks 3 and 4 are located approximately 125 feet northeast of
Building 1. A boiler located in Building 1 may be a source of
dioxin contamination found at the site due to the alleged
combustion of oil containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
The larger building, Building 2, served as the main production
facility. Most of the production equipment still remains in the
building along with rolls of finished materials and miscellaneous
pieces of small equipment. Four rooms were added to the original
structure of Building 2 after 1960. The additional portions of
this building may be built on buried debris. Thirty chemical-
processing vats were used to formulate the latex products; six
vats are located in Building 1 and 24 vats are located in
Building 2. Latex product has solidified on the interior and
exterior surfaces of the vats.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES .
The Industrial Latex Corporation manufactured chemical adhesives,
and natural and synthetic rubber compounds from 1951 until 1980.
Adhesives were initially formulated using vegetable protein'in a
solvent base. Solvents utilized in the process included acetone,
heptane, hexane, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), and methylene
chloride. To reduce flammability, PCBs were introduced as a fire
retardant. In addition, the PCBs also had excellent bonding
properties.
In the late 1970s, solvent-based adhesives were replaced by
water-based latex adhesives. Intermittent processing of latex
compounds continued at the site until October 1983, when all
operations ceased. Poor operational procedures and on-site waste
disposal practices resulted in widespread areas of surface and
subsurface soil contamination.
Prompted by numerous complaints from local officials about the
misuse of solvents and the dumping of trash and chemicals on the
property, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
and Energy (NJDEPE) conducted a site inspection in 1980 and found
approximately 250 leaking drums of various chemical compounds.
In addition, NJDEPE discovered that VOCs and materials
contaminated with PCBs had been disposed of in an on-site
sanitary septic system. NJDEPE conducted a second site
inspection in 1983 and discovered approximately 1,600 drums which
were open, leaking, or lying on their sides. Analyses of the
drum contents revealed the presence of acetone, hexane, MEK,
dimethyl formanide, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA).
-------
In 1985, NJDEPE began enforcement efforts to have the site owner
remove and properly dispose of all on-site drums and contaminated
soil. By March 1986, however, only about 400 drums had been
removed.
Because of the owner's inability to conduct a timely removal of
the material, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) initiated a removal action in April 1986 to address
immediate contaminant hazards present at the site. Sampling and
analyses of on-site drums revealed the presence of benzene,
ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene, and extensive PCB contamination.
By January 1987, EPA had removed 1,200 drums and 22 underground
storage tanks from the site.
From May 1987 until January 1988, EPA conducted an expanded site
inspection for the purpose of collecting additional data on the
nature and extent of contamination. In addition, a fence was
installed to restrict access to the site and reduce direct
exposure to surface contamination. The data collected during the
expanded site inspection was used as supporting documentation in
ranking the Industrial Latex site for inclusion on the National
Priorities List (NPL) of Superfund sites. The site was proposed
for inclusion on the NPL in June 1988 and finalized in March
1989. EPA initiated a remedial investigation and feasibility
study (RI/FS) to determine the nature and extent of contamination
at the Industrial Latex site in June 1989.
On March 26, 1986, EPA sent notice letters to five potentially
responsible parties (PRPs). On July 31, 1986, EPA issued a
Unilateral Administrative Order to all five of these PRPs
demanding that they perform removal actions at the site. None of
the PRPs offered to perform this work. In January 1988, EPA
filed a lien on the site pursuant to Section 113 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensatory and Liability
Act (CERCLA), as amended. In addition, EPA sent a letter, dated
January 4, 1988, to two of the PRPs demanding that they reimburse
EPA for $1,524,000 in past costs related to removal activities at
the site. Neither party offered to provide EPA with such
reimbursement. On March 17, 1992, EPA sent information request
letters to three firms believed to have information relating to
the disposal of waste material at the site. The responses did
not indicate that the firms had any involvement with the
Industrial Latex site. EPA will evaluate further enforcement
activities.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
A Community Relations Plan (CRP) was developed to ensure the
public opportunities for involvement in site-related decisions.
In addition, the CRP was used by EPA to determine, based on
community interviews, activities to ensure public involvement and
-------
to provide opportunities for the community to learn about the
site.
EPA held a public meeting and distributed a fact sheet in June
1989 to explain the initial RI/FS to the public and to report on
the progress being made at the site.
The RI and FS reports were released to the public in July 1992.
A Proposed Plan, that identified EPA's preferred remedial
alternative, was released on July 16, 1992. These documents were
made available to the public at the information repositories at
the John F. Kennedy Memorial Library, located on Hathaway Street
in Wallington, New Jersey, and the Wood-Ridge Memorial Library,
located on Hackensack Street in Wood-Ridge, New Jersey, and in
the administrative record file at the EPA Docket Room in Region
II, New York, New York. A copy of the administrative record is
also located at the John F. Kennedy Memorial Library. The notice
of availability for the above-referenced documents was published
in The Record (Bergen/Hudson Edition) on July 16, 1992. The
public comment period on these documents was held from July 16,
1992 to August 15, 1992.
On August 10, 1992, EPA conducted a public meeting at the
Wallington Civic Center, to present the findings of the RI/FS and
the Proposed Plan, and to respond to questions and comments from
area residents and other attendees.
Responses to the comments received during the public comment
period are included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is part
of this Record of Decision (ROD).
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Industrial Latex site, chosen in accordance with the CERCLA,
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthoriration Act
(SARA), and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The
selection of the remedy for this site is based on the
administrative record.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
This Record of Decision was developed by EPA.
As with many Superfund sites, the problems at the Industrial
Latex site are complex. As a result, EPA has organized the site
into two remedial phases or operable units, in addition to the
removal action that was conducted between April 1986 and January
1987. This ROD addresses the first operable unit for the site
and identifies the selected remedy for the contaminated soils and
sediments, buildings and equipment, drums, septic system, and
-------
hardened latex material. This is a final remedy for the first
operable unit.
Because the results of the groundwater investigation were not
conclusive, a second operable unit to more fully characterize the
presence and extent of contamination will be performed. A
subsequent investigation will be performed to determine the
nature and extent of any site-related groundwater contamination.
A final remedy for the groundwater contamination will be
determined after collecting and evaluating additional groundwater
information.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Site Geology and Hydrology
The Industrial Latex site lies within the physiographic region
known as the Triassic Lowlands which is a subdivision of the
Piedmont Province. In general, the lowland terrain consists of a
gently rolling surface that varies in altitude from one foot to
200 feet. The lowland is underlain by igneous and sedimentary
rocks of Jurassic and Triassic Age, respectively. The
sedimentary bedrock deposits of shale, siltstone and sandstone
belong to the Brunswick Formation of the Newark Group. The
Brunswick Formation is also referred to as the Passaic Formation.
The igneous bedrock consists of basalt and diabase intrusions
which form highly resistant ridges, known-as the Watchung
Mountains. The site is located in a small valley between two
northeast-southwest trending hills. The site has an average
elevation of 63 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The hill to the
west of the site has an elevation of 120 feet above MSL. To the
east, another ridge of hills rises to an altitude of 200 feet
above MSL.
The sedimentary beds strike north to northeast and dip west to
northwest at 10 degrees. A prominent set of joints parallels the
strike of the beds; a less prominent set strikes in a northwest
direction. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) performed
geophysical logging on the Borough of Hallington's Spring Street
well, located approximately 450 feet south of the site. Based on
this logging, the USGS inferred that major fracture zones exist
at 36 to 40 feet and 53 to 66 feet below ground surface, with
numerous small fractures down the rest of the 392-foot well.
Bedrock at the site is overlain by approximately 35 feet of
glacial deposits. The glacial deposits are thick (30 to 50 feet)
in the eastern portion of the site and relatively thin (6 to 8
feet) in the western portion of the site due to the sharp rise in
bedrock elevation in this area.
-------
Low portions of the site to the east have accumulated marshland
organic substratum of the Udorthents Series. However,
development of the area and reworking of the on-site soils have
disturbed the original soils significantly. In general, soils
found at the Industrial Latex site are classified as soils of the
Boonton Series Urban Land Complex.
The Industrial Latex site is located in the Passaic River basin.
Generally, on-site surface runoff flows eastward across the site
to an intermittent drainage channel which parallels the railroad
tracks. This drainage channel ordinarily flows only during
periods of excessive precipitation.
Groundwater is present in both consolidated and unconsolidated
subsurface material at the Industrial Latex site. Formerly, five
municipal wells supplied the Borough of Wellington with its
potable water. All wells were completed in the Brunswick
Formation, at depths ranging from approximately 350 to 400 feet
below the ground surface. As shown in Figure 2, the municipal
wells are situated throughout the Borough. Since 1985, the
municipal wells have been closed due to VOC contamination. The
primary contaminants are trans-l,2-dichloroethene, PCE, and TCE.
In 1986, the USGS conducted a survey of the groundwater quality
in the area of the Industrial Latex site. In addition to the
Wallington municipal wells, analytical data were reviewed from a
municipal test well immediately south of the site, monitoring
wells at the Curtiss-Wright Facility in Wood-Ridge northeast of
the site, and production wells at the Farmland Dairies in the
Borough of Wallington north of the site. Based on this water
quality data, the USGS inferred that groundwater in the
unconsolidated and bedrock materials around the site are
contaminated with VOCs, petroleum hydrocarbons, and phthalate
esters. This may indicate that groundwater contamination is a
regional problem in the area.
The RI also investigated groundwater quality both on and off the
Industrial Latex site. However, because groundwater sampling
produced inconsistent results, and only relatively low
concentrations of contaminants were detected, no conclusions
could be drawn from that part of the investigation.
The depth to water at the Industrial Latex site was found to
range from approximately 10 feet below the ground surface in the
eastern portion of the property to about 20 feet in the western
portion. The water level difference in the depth corresponds to
a change in topography between the eastern and western portions
of the site.
Using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Wetland
Classification System, the wetlands identified at the Industrial
Latex site were classified as palustrine wetlands. The water
-------
regime at the site could be classified as seasonally/temporarily
flooded. This indicates that water is present for both brief and
extended periods during the growing season. When surface water
is absent, the water table usually occurs closely below the
ground surface early in the season and drops lower as the growing
season continues. Palustrine emergent wetlands are located near
the northeast corner of the site. The palustrine scrub/shrub and
forested wetlands, in the northern section of the site between
the fence and the property boundary, are characterized by
hardwood shrub and tree vegetation. A scrub/shrub wetland
borders the surface drainage ditch adjacent to the eastern
property boundary. Past human activities have disturbed these
wetlands causing alterations in typical wetland hydrology, soil
and vegetation. Perturbations found on site include altered
drainage patterns, buried hydric soils (i.e., filled wetlands),
scraped and/or removed hydric soils, buried plant materials,
mounded dirt and debris on buried hydric.soils, ditched wetland
areas, and removed vegetation.
A Stage IA Cultural Resource Survey performed as part of the RI
concluded that there is little likelihood that significant
prehistoric or historic activities occurred at the site. In
addition, due to the extensive reworking of the site soils over
the last 40 years, any archeological remains of such activities
would have been likely obliterated. Therefore, no additional
investigation is considered necessary.
Nature and Extent of Contamination
A series of field investigations, collectively referred to as the
remedial investigation, was completed in June 1992. The purpose
of the RI was to determine the nature and extent of contamination
associated with the site.
To assess the nature and extent of contamination, 256 samples
were obtained from surface and subsurface soil, 54 samples from
groundwater, 24 from sediments, and 86 samples of building
components including interior building surfaces, floor drains,
septic systems, and equipment.
The major conclusions of the RI for the site are summarized
below:
• Approximately 32,000 cubic yards of soil on the site are
contaminated with PCB Aroclor 1260, bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate, metals, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs). This volume is based on an estimate of soil
containing more than 1 part per million (ppm) of PCBs, and
includes soil in the wetland portion of the site as well as
beneath the buildings. The highest levels of soil
contamination are found along the eastern boundary and in
the southeast corner of the site (Figures 3 to 6). PCB
-------
Aroclor 1260 is found in concentrations up to 4,000 ppm,
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate up to 280 ppm, and antimony up to
12.6 ppm. An additional 2,700 cubic yards of soil contain
metals at concentrations consistent with background levels
for the area. The background levels were based on off-site
sampling of soil.
Approximately 600 buried drums containing latex-type
material and other material are present along the eastern
boundary and southeastern corner of the site at a depth of
one-half foot to 10 feet below the ground surface. Samples
of this material detected PCB Aroclor 1260 at concentrations
as high as 43,700 ppm. In addition, drums and related
latex-type material are exposed along the railroad corridor.
Approximately 2,700 cubic yards of soil and sediments in a
drainage channel along the eastern border of the site are
contaminated with PCB Aroclor 1260 (up to 250 ppm), bis(2-
ethylhexyljphthaiate (up to 150 ppm), PAHs (up to 13 ppm),
and metals (up to 654 ppm). The surface water in the
drainage channel did not contain any compounds which exceed
promulgated New Jersey Surface Hater Quality Criteria.
Groundwater beneath the eastern portion of the site may be
contaminated with low concentrations of VOCs, PCB Aroclor
1260, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and metals, but the
results from several rounds of groundwater sampling were not
consistent. Additionally, because background conditions
were not sufficiently established, it could not be
determined if the groundwater was actually contaminated as a
result of the site. However, all residences in the area are
served by the Passaic Valley Water Commission.
Approximately 41,000 square feet of interior building
surfaces (walls and floors) and an exterior concrete pad are
contaminated with PCB Aroclor 1260 at a level up to 95 ppm.
The floor drains in one of the buildings, the processing
vats, and miscellaneous equipment within both buildings are
also contaminated with PCB Aroclor 1260 (as high as 570
ppm). The floor drains are also contaminated with VOCs,
phthalates, and metals.
Approximately 800 gallons of liquids and six cubic yards of
sludges from the septic tanks are contaminated with VOCs (up
to 2,800 ppm), PCBs (up to 22,000 ppm), phthalates (up to
5,600 ppm), and metals (up to 13,000 ppm).
Thirty vats are present in the two buildings on the site and
are primarily contaminated with surficial PCBs (up to 21,100
ppm), metals, and VOCs (up to 24,800 ppm).
8
-------
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Based upon the results of the RI, a baseline risk assessment was
conducted to estimate the risks associated with current and
future site conditions. The baseline risk assessment estimates
the human health and environmental risk which could result from
the contamination at the site if no remedial action were taken.
Human Health Risk Assessment
For the human health risk assessment, a reasonable maximum human
exposure was evaluated. A four-step process was utilized for
assessing site-related human health risks for a reasonable
maximum exposure scenario: Hazard Identification—identified the
contaminants of concern at the site based on several factors such
as toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and concentration; Exposure
Assessment—estimated the magnitude of actual and/or potential
human exposures, the frequency and duration of these exposures,
and the pathways (e.g., ingesting contaminated soil) by which
humans are potentially exposed; Toxicitv Assessment— determined
the types of adverse health effects associated with chemical
exposures, and the relationship between magnitude of exposure
(dose) and severity of adverse effects (response); and Risk
Characterization—summarized and combined outputs of the exposure
and toxicity assessments to provide a quantitative (e.g., pne-in-
a-million excess cancer risk) assessment of site-related risks.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic
(cancer causing) and noncarcinogenic effects due to exposure to
site chemicals are considered separately. It was assumed that
the toxic effects of the site-related chemicals would be
additive. Thus, carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks
associated with exposures to individual indicator compounds were
summed to indicate the potential risks associated with mixtures
of potential carcinogens and noncarcinogens, respectively.
Table 1 shows the chemicals detected in soil and sediments at the
site, and identifies the chemicals of potential concern. The
health effects criteria for the chemicals of potential concern
are presented in Table 2.
Noncarcinogenic risks were assessed using a Hazard Index (HI)
approach, based on a comparison of expected contaminant intakes
and safe levels of intake (Reference Doses). Reference Doses
(RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential
for adverse health effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units
of milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg-day), are estimates of
daily exposure levels for humans which are thought to be safe
over a lifetime (including sensitive individuals). Estimated
intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g., the amount
of a chemical ingested from contaminated drinking water) are
compared with the RfD to derive the hazard quotient for the
contaminant in the particular media. The HI is obtained by
-------
adding the hazard quotients for all compounds across all media.
An HI greater than 1.0 indicates that the potential exists for
noncarcinogenic health effects to occur as a result of site-
related exposures. The HI provides a useful reference point for
gauging the potential significance of multiple contaminant
exposures within a single medium or across media.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer
potency factors developed by EPA for the indicator compounds.
Cancer potency factors (CPFs) have been developed by EPA's
Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor for estimating
excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to
potentially carcinogenic chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed in
units of (mg/kg-day)'1, are multiplied by the estimated intake of
a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to generate an upper-bound
estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with
exposure to the compound at that intake level. The term "upper
bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated
from the CPFs. Use of this approach makes underestimation of the
risk highly unlikely.
For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper-
bound individual lifetime cancer risks of between 1X10"4 to
1X10"6 to be acceptable. This level indicates that an individual
has no greater than a one in ten thousand to one in a million
chance of developing cancer as a result of exposure to site
conditions over a 30-year period.
To evaluate human health risk, several exposure pathways were
selected for detailed evaluation under both current and future
land-use conditions. Under current land-use conditions
(Table 3), the dominant health risk is posed by the ingestion of
on-site surface soil (0 to 2 feet) by a trespasser. Ingestion of
soil poses the greatest carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risk.
The estimated cancer risk is 9x10"* (nine in ten thousand),
primarily due to PCB Aroclor 1260. The HI related to ingestion
of on-site surface soil is 7.8.
The estimated cancer risk for dermal contact with on-site soil
and for incidental ingestion of, or dermal contact with, off-site
surface soil are within EPA's target cancer risk range of ICT* to
104. The His for these exposure pathways are less than one.
Both excess cancer risk and the HI for the remaining exposure
pathways are also within acceptable levels.
The following exposure pathways were evaluated in detail under
future land-use conditions:
• Incidental ingestion and dermal absorption of on-site
surface soils by a hypothetical future worker.
10
-------
• Incidental ingestion and dermal absorption of on-site
surface soils by a hypothetical future resident (Birth
to 30 years old).
Under future land-use conditions (Table 4), the dominant health
risk is posed by the ingestion of on-site surface soil by a
future resident. Based on contaminant concentrations identified
in the on-site surface soil, ingestion of the soil poses the
greatest carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risk. The estimated
excess cancer risk is 2x10* (two in a hundred), due primarily to
PCB Aroclor 1260. The HI is 48, also due to PCB Aroclor 1260.
The estimated excess cancer risk for dermal contact with on-site
surface soil for a future resident is 5x10* (five in a thousand),
and the HI is 14. The estimated excess cancer risk for
incidental ingestion of on-site surface soil by a future worker
is 3X10-3, and 5x10" for dermal contact with the soil. The His
are 9.5 and 1.6, respectively.
A qualitative risk assessment was performed for the building
surfaces and vats on the site because of the difficulty in
adequately quantifying those exposure risks. Generally, the
chemicals detected on the building and vat surfaces were present
at concentrations significantly higher than the maximum
concentrations found in on-site soil. Dermal absorption of PCB
Aroclor 1260 and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate are the most serious
health threats, and chronic exposure may result in elevated
cancer risks, adverse liver effects, and fetotoxicity. Short-
term exposures via inhalation to high concentrations of VOCs in
the floor drains may result in neurological effects. The high
concentrations of inorganic chemicals are not likely to penetrate
the skin; however, the risks due to incidental ingestion may be
significant due primarily to antimony and zinc.
Ecological Risk Assessment
For the ecological risk assessment, a reasonable maximum
environmental exposure was evaluated. A four-step process was
utilized for assessing site-related ecological risks for a
reasonable maximum exposure scenario: Problem Formulation—a
qualitative evaluation of contaminant release, migration, and
fate; identification of contaminants of concern, receptors,
exposure pathways, and known ecological effects of the contami-
nants; and selection of endpoints for further study; Exposure
Assessment—a quantitative evaluation of contaminant release,
migration, and fate; characterization of exposure pathways and
receptors; and measurement or estimation of exposure point
concentrations; Ecological Effects Assessment—literature
reviews, field studies, and toxicity tests, linking contaminant
concentrations to effects on ecological receptors; and Risk
11
-------
Characterization—measurement or estimation of both current and
future adverse effects.
The ecological assessment is summarized as follows:
• PCBs have the greatest potential to adversely impact
the soil-dwelling invertebrates and small mammals
because they are widely distributed in the soil
throughout the site, and have a relatively high
toxicity and propensity to bioconcentrate.
• Chemical concentrations in the surface water of the
drainage channel are generally below concentrations
likely to impact aquatic communities. Some impacts
might occur to sensitive aquatic species and/or life
stages as a result of inorganic contaminants in the
sediment.
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this
evaluation, as in all such assessments, are subject to a wide
variety of uncertainties. In general, the main sources of
uncertainty include:
- environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
- environmental parameter measurement
- fate and transport modeling
- exposure parameter estimation
- toxicological data
Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the
potentially uneven distribution of chemicals in the media
sampled. Consequently, there is significant uncertainty as to
the actual levels present. Environmental chemistry-analysis
error can stem from several sources including the errors inherent
in the analytical methods and characteristics of the matrix being
sampled. '
Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related to estimates
of how often an individual would actually come in contact with
the contaminants of concern, the period of time over which such
exposure would occur, and in the models used to estimate the
concentrations of the contaminants of concern at the point of
exposure.
Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both
from animals to humans and from high to low doses of exposure, as
well as from the difficulties in assessing the toxicity of a
mixture of chemicals. These uncertainties are addressed by
making conservative assumptions concerning risk and exposure
parameters throughout.the assessment. As a result, the Risk
12
-------
Assessment provides upper-bound estimates of the risks to
populations near the site, and is highly unlikely to
underestimate actual risks related to the site.
More specific information concerning human health risks,
including a quantitative evaluation of the degree of risk
associated with various exposure pathways, is presented in the
Risk Assessment Report.
Conclusion
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
Industrial Latex 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.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
The following remedial action objectives have been established
for this operable unit of the Industrial Latex site:
• Reduce risks associated with inadvertent ingestion of, and
direct contact with, contaminated soil and sediments
• Reduce risks associated with continued release of
contaminants from other known source areas, such as buried
drums, buried off-specification product, and septic tanks
• Reduce risks associated with potential future releases from
equipment, building process vats, floor drains, and
buildings
• Reduce ecological risks associated with current site
conditions and potential future releases from equipment,
building process vats, floor drains, and buildings
To achieve these objectives, EPA will utilize the risk-based
remediation goals developed for the Industrial Latex site shown
on Table 5. The remediation goals were based on an assumption
that the site could be developed for residential use at some
future time. Additionally, the relatively close proximity of
current residences to the contaminated area (several residential
backyards extend onto uncontaminated portions of the Industrial
Latex property) further substantiates the basis for this
assumption. The remediation goals will decrease the risks to the
10* range. These risk-based remediation goals were derived in
order to reflect the potential risk from exposure to a chemical
given a specific pathway, medium, and land-use combination. By
setting the total risk for carcinogenic effects at an acceptable
risk level (i.e., one in a million), it is possible to calculate
13
-------
a'remediation level for carcinogens in that exposure pathway.
For noncarcinogens, total risk is set at an HI of 1 for each
chemical in a particular medium. It is then possible to
calculate a remediation level for each noncarcinogen within that
particular medium. Because significant contaminant
concentrations are present near the groundwater table in some
areas of the site, soil will be remediated to the average water
table (approximately ten feet below the ground surface).
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that each selected site
remedy be protective of human health and the environment, comply
with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements, utilize
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or
resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable,
and be cost effective. In addition, the statute includes a
preference for the use of treatment as a principal element for
the reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous
substances.
The FS evaluated in detail eight alternatives for remediating the
soil, three alternatives for remediating hardened material in
vats, and four alternatives for remediating building surfaces.
Under the soil remedial alternatives, Alternative S-l (A), No
Action, also includes no action for the hardened material in vats
and the building surfaces. Alternatives S-2 through S-6 each
include the excavation of buried drums which would be transported
off site for treatment or disposal. Alternatives S-4, S-5, and
S-6 also include the removal of the septic system and its
contents for off-site treatment or disposal.
.The estimated capital cost, operation and maintenance costs
(O&M), and net present worth costs of each alternative discussed
below are provided for comparison. The estimated implementation
time reflects only the time required to construct or implement
the remedy, and does not include the time required to design the
remedy, negotiate with the.responsible parties, or procure
contracts for design and construction. A brief description of
each alternative follows.
14
-------
SOIL (INCLUDING BURIED DRUM/LATEX) REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVES
Alternative B-l (A)t No Action (Boil, Vats, and Building
Surfaces)
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 0
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $30,000
Estimated Present Worth: $83,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: none
A No Action alternative is evaluated for every Superfund site to
establish a baseline for comparison of remedial alternatives.
Under this alternative, no further action would be taken to
address contamination at the site.
The fence which currently surrounds the site would remain in
place, however, it would not be maintained. No measures would be
taken to reduce the potential for exposures to the contaminated
soil, hardened material in vats, or the building surfaces. No
environmental monitoring activities would be performed, other
than a review after five years to determine if contamination has
spread. The cost estimates above include the cost to perform
this review.
Alternative S-l (Blt Minimal Action
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 167,000
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 237,200
Estimated Present Worth: ' $3,434,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 30 years
Under the Minimal Action alternative, no measures would be taken
to remediate the contamination on the site. However, certain
capital costs which include extending the existing fence and
groundwater monitoring would be included in this alternative.
Site conditions would also be periodically monitored to evaluate
the migration of contaminants from the site and to monitor the
effects of natural attenuation. As with the No Action
alternative, a review would be required after five years. The
estimated implementation timeframe for this alternative is for
the monitoring program.
15
-------
Alternative 8-2: Capping
Estimated Capital Cost: . $4,940,000
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 240,000
Estimated Present Worth: $7,090,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 6 months
Capping represents an alternative that utilizes containment with
no treatment. Capping would reduce the mobility of the soil
contaminants by minimizing water infiltration and subsequent
leaching of. soil contaminants into the groundwater. Various
capping methodologies were evaluated in the FS including a
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) type cap, multi-
media cap, asphalt cap, and soil cap. For cost estimation
purposes, an asphalt cap with an underlying High Density
Polyethylene liner was selected as the representative process
option for the capping alternative.
Prior to construction of the cap, buried drums would be excavated
and transported off site for treatment or disposal. Contaminated
sediments from the drainage ditch and contaminated soil from the
wetland area at the northeastern portion of the site would be
excavated and relocated to the area to be capped.
During construction and related activities, an air monitoring
program would be implemented to assure that no significant
airborne contamination migrates off site. Dust suppression
measures would be undertaken during soil excavation and related
activities. Additionally, an assessment of the wetlands would be
performed to determine the potential impact of the remedial
action. If necessary, a detailed plan for wetland mitigation or
restoration would be developed.
Following the installation of the cap, a long-term monitoring
program would be undertaken to ensure the effectiveness of the
remedy. Deed restrictions would be sought for the property, if
necessary.
Alternative S-3: In-sit
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 9,100,000
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 240,000
Estimated Present Worth: $11,200,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 6 months
Under this alternative, contaminated soil would be mixed with
setting agents, such as cement or lime, to form a hard, durable
product in which contaminants are chemically bound and/or
entrapped in the solidified mass.
Approximately 28,100 cubic yards of contaminated surface and
subsurface soil can be stabilized in place. The remaining soil,
16
-------
an estimated 6,600 cubic yards, is in the wetland area, confined
areas where the soil mixing equipment cannot reach, or under the
buildings. Soils in the wetland area would be excavated and
stabilized ex-situ to facilitate wetland restoration. Soils
removed from wetland would be relocated on site after treatment.
Soils excavated from the confined area between the buildings
would be treated ex-situ and used to backfill the same area from
which they were removed. If the buildings were demolished, that
soil could be also stabilized in place, as well as the soil under
the buildings. If the buildings were not demolished, the soil
under them would not be stabilized. .
An asphalt cap would be constructed over the stabilized soils to
isolate them and to reduce the infiltration of precipitation into
the treated soils. Prior to the stabilization of the soil,
buried drums would be excavated and transported off site for
treatment or disposal. During construction and related
activities, an air monitoring program would be implemented to
assure that no significant airborne contamination migrates off
site. Dust suppression measures would be undertaken during soil
excavation and related activities. .Deed restrictions would be
sought for the property, if necessary. Additionally, an
assessment of the wetlands would be performed to determine the
potential impact of the remedial action. If necessary, a
detailed plan for wetland mitigation or restoration would be
developed.
Alternative S-4; Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Estimated Capital Cost: $10,480,000
Estimated Annual O&H Costs: $ 4,848,700
Estimated Present Worth: $17,100,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 1 year
Alternative S-4 involves excavation of an estimated 34,700 cubic
yards of contaminated soil, on-site treatment by low temperature
thermal desprption (LTTD), and backfilling of treated material.
Buried drums and the septic system would be excavated and
transported off site for treatment or disposal.
LTTD is a treatment process for solids and sludges which uses
thermal forces to remove PCBs and other organic contamination.
Contaminated soil is indirectly heated causing the volatilization
of organic compounds. The process off-gas is then treated using
a scrubber and activated carbon filters, or some other
appropriate gas treatment approach. The residuals from this
process, which include spent carbon and small amounts of waste
water, would be transported off site for treatment or disposal.
Data available from the treatability study show that PCBs have
been reduced to less than 2 parts per million (ppm) (the
treatability study treatment goal). It is anticipated that the
EPA remediation goal of 1 ppm can be satisfied by modifying
17
-------
treatment conditions such as residence tine and temperature, if
necessary. If the remediation goal of 1 ppm cannot be satisfied,
the residual soils may need additional remedial measures (e.g.,
stabilization) prior to backfilling. If necessary, a waiver of
TSCA chemical waste landfill requirements would be sought under
40 CFR 761.75(0)(4).
Treated soil would be tested to determine the need for
stabilization of metals prior to backfilling. After backfilling,
the treated soil would be graded, covered with topsoil, and
seeded. During construction and related activities, an air
monitoring program would be implemented to assure that no
significant airborne contamination migrates off site. Dust
suppression measures would be undertaken during soil excavation
and related activities. Additionally, an assessment of the
wetlands would be performed to determine the potential impact of
the remedial action. If necessary, a detailed plan for wetland
mitigation or restoration would be developed. Deed restrictions
would be sought for the property, if necessary.
$ 5,760,000
$ 5,073,600
$16,800,000
2 years
Alternative B-5: Dechlorination
Estimated Capital Cost:
Estimated Annual O&M Costs:
Estimated Present Worth: ...
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 2 years
The dechlorination alternative involves excavation of
approximately 34,700 cubic yards of contaminated soils, on-site
treatment by dechlorination, and backfilling of the treated
material. Buried drums and the septic system would be excavated
and transported off site for treatment or disposal.
Dechlorination is a chemical treatment process in which a glycol
reagent is used to displace chlorine molecules from certain
classes of chlorinated organic wastes, producing a less toxic,
water-soluble species. Dechlorination can be used to treat
liquids, soils, and sludges containing PCBs, chlorobenzenes, and
dibenzofurans. The soil pH would be neutralized prior to
backfilling on site, coupled with leachate testing to demonstrate
that treated soils would not contribute to groundwater
contamination. Process fluids may require off-site treatment or
disposal. Toxicity testing of treated soils would be performed
to ensure that terrestrial organisms can be supported. Solid
residuals would be sampled and analyzed for toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) and total constituents,
and other RCRA characteristics necessary for off-site disposal.
Treated soil would be tested to determine the need for
stabilization of metals prior to backfilling. After backfilling,
the treated soil would be graded, covered with topsoil, and
seeded. During construction and related activities, an air
18
-------
monitoring program would be implemented to assure that no
significant airborne contamination migrates off site. Dust
suppression measures would be undertaken during soil excavation
and related activities. Additionally, an assessment of the
wetlands would be performed to determine the potential impact of
the remedial action. If necessary, a detailed plan for wetland
mitigation or restoration would be developed. Deed restrictions
would be sought for the property, if necessary.
Alternative s-6; Solvent Extraction
Estimated Capital Cost: $16,200,000
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 5,716,900
Estimated Present Worth: $23,700,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 1 year
This alternative involves excavation of an estimated 34,700 cubic
yards of contaminated soil, on-site treatment by solvent
extraction, and backfilling of the treated material. Treated
soil would be tested to determine the need for stabilization of
metals prior to backfilling. Buried drums and the septic system
would be excavated and transported off site for treatment or
disposal.
Solvent extraction is a physical treatment process in which an
organic solvent is used to extract organic contaminants from the
soils and sediments. The solvent extraction process would
separate the contaminated soils into three distinct fractions:
dry, oil-free solids; water; and oil. This separation occurs in
a two-stage process consisting of a cold stage followed by a hot
stage. During the cold stage, the screened, contaminated soil in
mixed with a solvent such as triethylamine (TEA), and two phases
are formed: a TEA/oil/water phase, and a solids phase. ,The
solids are removed with a filter or centrifuge and dried to
recover the solvent. Since the environment is alkaline, the
metals are converted to hydrated oxides, which precipitate and
exit the process with the solids. After the TEA/oil/water phase
leaves the cold stage, it is heated to 130°F at which point two
separate phases are formed: a TEA/oil phase, and a TEA/water
phase. Solvent is recovered by drying the solids, and steam
stripping the oil and water phases.
Confirmatory sampling of treated soils and sediments would be
conducted prior to backfilling. This would consist of sampling
each batch of treated material and analyzing.for PCBs and full
TCLP and total analyses. Toxicity testing would also be
conducted to ensure that treated soils can support terrestrial
organisms.
Residual PCB-contaminated oil from the treatment process would be
sampled for total and TCLP constituents, and other RCRA
characteristics necessary for off-site disposal. No other
19
-------
residuals are anticipated to be generated which would require
off-site disposal. However, material that cannot be processed in
the solvent extraction system (e.g., rocks, tree roots) may also
require off-site disposal.
After backfilling, the treated soil would be graded, covered with
topsoil, and seeded. During construction and related activities,
an air monitoring program would be implemented to assure that no
significant airborne contamination migrates off site. Dust
suppression measures would be undertaken during soil excavation
and related activities. Additionally, an assessment of the
wetlands would be performed to determine the potential impact of
the remedial action. If necessary, a detailed plan for wetland
mitigation or restoration would be developed. Deed restrictions
would be sought for the property, if necessary.
Alternative 8-7i Qn-site Incineration
Estimated Capital Cost:
Estimated Annual O&M Costs:
$ 7,190,000
Estimated Annual O&M costs: $ 8,872,900
Estimated Present Worth: $25,300,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 3 years
Alternative S-7 would involve the excavation of approximately
34,700 cubic yards of contaminated soil followed by thermal
destruction of organic chemicals (PCBs, VOCs and PAHs) using a
mobile on-site incineration unit. Contaminated materials (i.e.,
soils, sediments, hardened latex product and drums) would be
incinerated on site. Materials handling may be necessary to
shred drums and latex material prior to feeding into the
incinerator.
The rotary kiln incineration process evaluated for this
alternative involves the introduction of wastes and auxiliary
fuel into the high end of an inclined cylindrical refractory-
lined kiln. Wastes are substantially oxidized to gases and ash
as they pass through the rotating kiln. Rotation of the
combustion chamber creates turbulence and improves the degree of
oxidation. Solids retention time varies.from several minutes to
more than an hour depending on waste characteristics. Exhaust
gases from the kiln enter a secondary chamber afterburner to
complete oxidation of the combustible waste. Prior to release to
the atmosphere, exhaust gases from the afterburner pass through
air pollution control units for particulate and acid gas removal.
Ash residue (i.e.,. treated soil) is discharged at the bottom of
the kiln. Treated soil would be tested to assure the organic
contaminants are destroyed and to determine the need for
stabilization of metals prior to backfilling. After backfilling,
the treated soil would be graded, covered with topsoil, and
seeded.
20
-------
During construction and related activities, an air monitoring
program would be implemented to assure that no significant
airborne contamination migrates off site. Dust suppression
measures would be undertaken during soil excavation and related
activities. Additionally, an assessment of the wetlands would be
performed to determine the potential impact of the. remedial
action. If necessary, a detailed plan for wetland mitigation or
restoration would be developed. Deed restrictions would be
sought for the property, if necessary.
Alternative 8-8; Off-site Landfillino
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 4,900,000
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 6,886,600
Estimated Present Worth: $13,600,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 1 year
This alternative consists of the excavation and off-site disposal
of approximately 34,700 cubic .yards of contaminated material.
Composite soil and sediment samples would be analyzed for PCS
content to characterize the level of contamination. Off-site
landfilling of contaminated soils and sediments would be
conducted in accordance with RCRA and TSCA regulations, including
transport via a licensed firm in accordance with Department of
Transportation requirements and disposal in an appropriately
permitted landfill(s). Soil containing less than 50 ppm of PCBs
could be sent to an industrial solid waste landfill, while soil
contaminated above 50 ppm would be sent to a RCRA/TSCA landfill.
RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (40 CFR 268) would be satisfied
for all excavated soil prior to landfilling.
During construction and related activities, an air monitoring
program would be implemented to assure that no significant
airborne contamination migrates off site. Dust suppression
measures would be undertaken during soil excavation and related
activities. Additionally, an assessment of the wetlands would be
performed to determine the potential impact of the remedial
action. If necessary, a detailed plan for wetland mitigation or
restoration would be developed. Deed restrictions would be
sought for the property, if necessary. For shipment to the off-
site landfill, a rail spur would be constructed on the Industrial
Latex site. It would take approximately 100 shipments utilizing
five rail cars per day to transport the contaminated soil from
Industrial Latex site. Clean fill would be transported to the
site and placed into the excavated area. Utilizing a 20 cubic
yard dump truck, it would take approximately 1,540 truckloads to
backfill the site. After backfilling, the site would be graded,
covered with topsoil, and seeded.
21
-------
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR HARDENED MATERIAL IN VATS
The No Action alternative for the hardened material in vats is
presented as Alternative S-l (A) under the soil remedial*
alternatives. Under that alternative, no measures would be taken
to reduce exposures to the hardened material in the vats on the
site. Although combined with the no action alternative for soil,
no action for the hardened material in vats could be
independently selected.
Alternative V-H Disposal of Vata ia Off-aita Landfill
Estimated Capital Cost: $140,200
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 0
Estimated Present Worth: $140,200
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 2 months
Alternative V-l involves dismantling the production vats from
their steel supports and draining any remaining unhardened
material into drums for transportation off site for disposal in
an off-site landfill or incineration. The vats containing
hardened material would then be transported to an approved
TSCA/RCRA landfill via flat bed truck. The floor drains would
also be removed and transported for disposal with the vats.
Alternative V-2i Disposal of Vats through Off-site Incineration
Estimated Capital Cost: $646,500
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 0
Estimated Present Worth: $646,500
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 2 months
This alternative is similar to Alternative V-l, except that the
vats would be transported off site for incineration. Because of
their large size, the vats would likely require shredding prior
to incineration. The material in the floor drains would also be
disposed of through off-site incineration.
Alternative V-3t Blast Hardened Material from Vata
Estimated Capital Cost: $286,000
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 0
Estimated Present Worth: $286,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 3 months
Under this alternative, the hardened material in the vats and the
floor drains would be removed using dry ice pellet blasting. Dry
ice pellets would impact the hardened material at a high rate of
speed, shearing the material from the surface of the vats.
Because dry ice consists entirely of carbon dioxide which would
evaporate as the dry ice thaws, no residuals would be generated
22
-------
beyond the removed material. The removed material would be
transported off site for incineration.
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR BUILDING SURFACES
The No Action alternative for the building surfaces is presented
as Alternative S-l (A) under the soil remedial alternatives.
Under that alternative, no measures would be taken to reduce
exposures to the contaminated building surfaces on the site.
Although combined with the no action alternative for soil, no
action for the building surfaces could be independently selected.
Alternative B-l; Solvent/Detergent Washing Followed bv Surface
Sealing
Estimated Capital Cost: $450,700
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 21,000
Estimated Present Worth: $773,700
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 6 months
Alternative B-l involves surface cleaning of the walls and floors
with a two-part, non-flammable solvent/detergent-based cleaner
where PCB contamination is present only on the surface.
The effectiveness of this alternative is highly dependent on the
depth of PCB contamination and the selection of a cleaning
solution. Where the contaminants have migrated below the
concrete surface, it may be difficult to utilize this technology.
To reduce the chance of exposure to this subsurface
contamination, it would be necessary to seal the surface with an
epoxy coating. Surface washing generates additional contaminated
liquid that would be disposed of off site.
Alternative B-2: Blasting of Building Surfaces
Estimated Capital Cost: $799,700
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 0
Estimated Present Worth: $799,700
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 4 months
Similar to the process described under Alternative V-3, the
building surfaces would be cleaned using dry ice pellet blasting.
The PCB-contaminated concrete removed from the building surfaces
would be disposed of in an off-site TSCA-permitted landfill.
Because the PCB contamination on the walls and floors has no
apparent thickness, and the blasting action is most effective for
thick layers of surface contamination, field testing would be
required to evaluate the effectiveness of the technology for
application at the site. Shrouds would be erected in the area of
operation to protect against flying debris and to contain waste
material. Because the dry ice pellets would lift the
23
-------
contamination away from the concrete rather than pulverizing the
concrete, there should not be a significant airborne particulate
exposure problem. Air monitoring would be performed to confirm
this during remediation.
Alternative B~3: pe^blipcr of Building Surfaces
Estimated Capital Cost: $320,900
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 0
Estimated Present Worth: $320,900
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 3 months
This alternative is proven effective for removal of PCB
contamination that has penetrated into a concrete substrate. A
scabbling device, consisting of pneumatic pistons tipped with
carbide teeth, would be used to break off building material to a
pre-determined depth. A vacuum system attached to the scabbling
device would reduce the amount of dust generated and would be
capable of containerizing the dust in one step. Scabbling
generates no waste in addition to the contaminated concrete that
is being removed. However, this alternative could permanently
damage the thin concrete block walls rendering the buildings
useless or potentially unsafe. PCB-contaminated concrete would
be disposed in. an off-site TSCA-permitted landfill. Scabbling
presents some risk of exposure to PCB-contaminated dust if the
vacuum system is not operated properly to contain the pulverized
concrete. Standard health and safety and fugitive dust control
practices should be sufficient to manage this risk.
Alternative B-4i Building Demolition
Estimated Capital Cost: $643,400
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 0
Estimated Present Worth: $643,400
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 6 months
This alternative would remove the PCB-contaminated structures
from the site. If completed in phases, it may be possible to
segregate the uncontaminated concrete from the contaminated
concrete. Testing during remedial design would determine the
ability to separate the material. If it is possible to separate
the material by level of contamination, several options would be
available for disposal. The PCB-contaminated concrete which -
contains greater than 50 ppm of PCBs, would be disposed of at a
TSCA-permitted facility, while the concrete containing between 1
and 50 ppm PCB could be disposed of at an industrial solid waste
facility. The uncontaminated concrete could be used as fill on
site or disposed of in an approved landfill off site. Building
demolition presents potential short-term exposure to PCB-
contaminated dust. Therefore, appropriate dust control measures
would need to be employed during demolition. Air monitoring
would also be performed during remediation.
24
-------
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with the NCP, a detailed analysis of each remedial
alternative was performed with respect to each of the nine
evaluation criteria. This section discusses and compares the
performance of the remedial alternative under consideration
against these criteria. These criteria were developed to address
the requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA to ensure all important
considerations are factored into remedy selection decisions. All
selected remedies must at least satisfy the Threshold Criteria.
The selected remedy should provide the best trade-offs among the
Primary Balancing Criteria. The Modifying Criteria are evaluated
following the public comment period.
Threshold Criteria
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment
addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate
protection and describes how risks posed through each
exposure pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled
through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional
controls.
2. Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy
would meet all of the applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) of federal and state environmental
statutes and requirements and/or provide grounds for
invoking a waiver. .
Primary Balancing criteria
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the
magnitude of residual risk and the ability of a remedy to
maintain reliable protection of human health and the
environment over time, once remedial objectives have been
met.
4. Reduction of toxicitv. mobility or volume through treatment
addresses the statutory preference for selecting remedial
actions that employ treatment technologies that permanently
and significantly reduce toxicity, mobility or volume of the
hazardous substances as a principal element.
5. 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 the remedial
objectives are achieved.
6. Implementabilitv is the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of
25
-------
materials and services needed to implement a particular
alternative.
7. Cost includes estimated capital and operation and
maintenance costs, and the present worth costs.
Modifying Criteria
8. State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of
the RI/FS and the Proposed Plan, the State supports,
opposes, and/or has identified any reservations regarding
the preferred alternative.
9. Community acceptance refers to the community's comments on
the alternatives described in the Proposed Plan, and the RI
and FS reports. Responses to public comments are addressed
in the Responsiveness Summary section of this Record of
Decision.
The three categories of contaminated media (i.e., soil, vats, and
buildings) are evaluated separately utilizing the above criteria.
A comparative analysis of the remedial alternatives based upon
the evaluation criteria noted above, follows.
SOIL (INCLUDING BURIED DRUM/LATEX) REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVES
A comparison of the soil remediation alternatives follows.
Overall Protection of Hm*an *alth and the EPV
Alternatives S-l (A) , No Action, and S-l (B) , Minimal Action, are
not protective of human health and the environment because the
risks associated with the Industrial Latex site would persist for
the foreseeable future. Alternative S-2, Capping, reduces the
possibility of direct contact with contaminated soils through
containment and, therefore, reduces human health risks associated
with direct contact with contaminated soil. However, the
existing contaminated soil would remain on the site. Alternative
S-3, In-situ Stabilization, also reduces the possibility of
direct contact with the contaminated soils through immobilization
and containment. Although contaminated soil remains on site
under both Alternatives S-2 and S-3, further migration of
contaminants in the groundwater is reduced by minimizing
infiltration and leaching of contaminants into the groundwater.
The remaining five alternatives are protective of human health
and the environment because they remove contamination from the
site, either directly, as in Alternative S-8, Off-site
Landfill ing, or by treating the soil to remove the risk-causing
contaminants (i.e., primarily PCBs) .
26
-------
Wetlands would be assessed to determine the need for mitigation
measures or restoration if they would be potentially impacted by
remedial action.
Compliance with ARARs
While there are no ARARs for soil contamination, EPA policy has
established a cleanup goal of 1 ppm for PCB-contaminated sites
for residential use. EPA also developed site-specific, risk-
based remediation goals for the other contaminants of concern.
Alternative s-1 (A), No Action, and S-l (B), Minimal Action, do
not achieve these remediation goals. Alternatives S-2, Capping,
and S-3, In-situ Stabilization, also do not comply with the
remediation goals because the soil contamination would be left on
site for an indefinite period of time. Although contaminant
levels are not reduced, Alternatives S-2 and S-3 prevent direct
contact with and migration of contaminants through capping and/or
immobilization of the contaminants. While Alternative S-2 would
reduce the leaching of contamination, it would not achieve RCRA-
closure requirements.
Alternatives S-4 through S-8 satisfy EPA remediation goals and
RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions for hazardous wastes as they
apply to backfilling of treated soil, off-site landfilling, or
residuals disposal. Alternative S-8 may require additional
treatment, however, prior to disposal in an off-site landfill.
Alternatives S-3 through S-6 would be designed to comply with
RCRA requirements. Alternatives S-7, On-site Incineration, and
S-8, Off-site Landfilling, comply with RCRA/TSCA regulations.
Additionally, Alternative 7 complies with RCRA Subpart O
Incineration Unit requirements. Alternatives S-4 through S-7
would be designed to satisfy air ARARs. Because of the presence
of wetlands, wetlands mitigation or restoration requirements
would be complied with for those alternatives that impact on
them.
Because Alternatives S-l (A), No Action, and S-l (B), Minimal
Action, do not meet the threshold requirements of overall
protection of human health and the environment or compliance with
ARARs, they will not be considered further in the evaluation of
alternatives.
Lopg-Term Effectiveness And Permanence
Alternatives S-4, LTTD, S-5, Dechlorination, and S-7, On-site
Incineration, are the most effective in the long term and the
most permanent because the contamination is removed from the soil
at the site and destroyed either on or off site. Treatability
study results show that LTTD provided significant removal of PCBs
from Industrial Latex site soils. Data available from the
treatability study show that PCBs have been reduced to less than
2 ppm (the treatability study treatment goal). It is anticipated
27
-------
that the EPA risk-based remediation goal of 1 ppm can be
satisfied by modifying treatment conditions such as residence
time and temperature, if necessary. If it is not possible to
achieve the remediation goal, a waiver of TSCA chemical waste
landfill requirements would be sought under 40 CFR 761.75(c)(4).
The long-term effectiveness of Alternative S-6, Solvent
Extraction, is less certain than the other technologies because
of the uncertainty about the fate of the residual solvent used in
the treatment process. Alternative S-8, Off-site Landfilling,
provides long-term effectiveness at the site, but relies on the
long-term integrity of off-site disposal facilities.
The long-term effectiveness of Alternative S-3, In-situ .
Stabilization, is also less certain because it relies on the
ability of the soil-fixing techniques to permanently immobilize
the contaminants. With this technology, there is no certainty
that the organic contaminants could be effectively immobilized.
Alternative S-2, Capping, is effective and prevents direct
contact with contaminated soil only as long as the integrity of
the cap is maintained. Therefore, continued maintenance would be
required for an indefinite period of time.
Reduction cf Toxicitv. Mobility, and Y?lvi]ne Through Treatment
Alternatives S-2 through S-8 all involve the removal and disposal
of buried drums and hardened latex material. However, in dealing
with the contaminants in the soil at the Industrial Latex site,
some alternatives provide a greater reduction in toxicity,
mobility, and volume. Alternatives S-5, Dechlorination, and S-7,
On-site Incineration, provide the greatest reduction in toxicity,
mobility, and volume because the organic contaminants which pose
the major problem at the Industrial Latex site (PCBs) are
destroyed in the treatment process. Alternatives S-4, LTTD, and
S-6, Solvent Extraction, also substantially reduce the toxicity,
mobility and volume of contamination by extracting organic
compounds from the soil and further treating the residuals off
site. Alternative S-3, In-situ Stabilization, relies solely on
reduction of the, contaminant mobility of both organic and
inorganic contaminants, and there is no certainty that the
organic contaminants could be effectively immobilized.
Alternative S-2, Capping, uses no form of treatment and relies
solely on the ability of the cap to prevent direct contact and to
prevent soil contamination from further adversely affecting
surface water and groundwater. Alternative S-8, Off-site
Landfilling, does not affect the toxicity or volume of
contaminants, but it somewhat reduces the mobility by containing
excavated soils in a regulated landfill.
Bhort-Term Effectiveness
Alternative S-2, Capping, involves the least intrusive activity
and, as a result, poses the least threat to the surrounding
28
-------
community and to on-site workers. Alternative S-2 also requires
the shortest period of time to implement, less than six months.
Alternative S-3, In-situ Stabilization, requires somewhat more
intrusive activity and, as a result, has a greater impact in the
short term. All of the remaining alternatives have a greater
potential impact in the short term due to excavation of soils,
which would require engineering controls to minimize these
impacts. For Alternatives S-4 through S-7, risks associated with
treatment system mobilization and start-up are expected to be
minimal. The system vendor would be required to develop and
implement a health and safety plan to protect nearby residents
and on-site workers. This plan would address chemical usage,
operator safety, and responses to process leaks and unanticipated
system upsets during start-up. Wetlands disturbed by excavation
and treatment system construction activities would be
appropriately addressed as part of these alternatives, where
necessary. Alternative S-8, Off-site Landfilling, would involve
transportation of hazardous wastes over long distances,
potentially creating additional exposure risks.
Implementabilitv
Alternative S-2, Capping, is the easiest alternative to implement
and uses the most commonly available materials and equipment.
The proposed asphalt cap is technically feasible to construct.
Since the remediation area is relatively flat, only minor grading
would be required to prepare the area for construction.
Alternative S-8, Off-site Landfilling, can also be implemented,
provided that existing landfills continue to be capable of
receiving the waste at the time remediation occurs. Alternative
S-7, On-site Incineration, has been successful in the remediation
of hazardous waste problems, but has a potentially long start-up
process in order to demonstrate that applicable requirements will
be met. Alternatives S-4, LTTD, S-5, Dechlorination, and S-6,
Solvent Extraction, utilize processes which are relatively new in
the. remediation of hazardous waste sites, and rely on the
availability of off-site facilities for the disposal or treatment
of residuals. Although treatability studies were performed for
LTTD during the RI/FS, Alternative S-4 may require pilot studies
to determine the optimal operating parameters during design.
Because there is some uncertainty as to the residuals associated
with Alternatives S-5 and S-6, toxicity testing would need to
performed prior to implementation. Alternative S-3, In-situ
Stabilization, has been successful for remediating inorganic
contaminants, but is relatively new and uncertain in the
treatment of organic contaminants. Additives to the basic
cement-based stabilizers would have to be carefully determined
through pilot-scale testing and may have to be varied throughout
the site to address the variability of the organic contamination.
29
-------
COSt
Estimated capital costs, annual O&M costs, total present worth
costs, and the implementation timeframes of all of the soil
remedial alternatives are summarized in Table 6. Present worth
costs are based on a 30-year period and a discount rate of 5
percent.
Alternative S-2, Capping, is overall the least costly
alternative. Among the treatment alternatives that remove PCBs
from the soil, Alternatives S-5, Dechlorination, and S-4, LTTD,
were about equally low in cost and were slightly more than twice
as costly as Alternative S-2. Alternative S-8, Off-site
Landfill ing, costs more than Alternative S-2 (Capping) and S-3
(In-situ Stabilization) , but less than all of the ex-situ
treatment alternatives.
State Acceptance
The State of New Jersey has not as yet concurred with the
selected soil remediation alternative.
v Acceptance
Community Acceptance was evaluated after the close of the public
comment period. Written comments received during the public
comment period, as well as verbal comments during the public
meeting on August 10, 1992, were evaluated. Several reservations
were expressed regarding EPA's proposed soil remediation
alternative at the public meeting. The responses to those
comments are addressed in the Responsiveness Summary.
N.
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR HARDENED MATERIAL ZN VATS
The No Action alternative for the hardened material in vats is
presented as Alternative S-l (A) under the soil remedial
alternatives. A comparison of the alternatives for remediating
the hardened material follows.
Overall Protection of HvT"an Health and the Eavjgynfl1*]^
The No Action alternative, S-l (A) , would not be protective of
human health and the environment. The risk of exposure to the
material in the vats would not be reduced to any degree under
this alternative.
All of the active remedial alternatives reduce the current and
future potential risks associated with direct contact with
hardened material in the vats by either completely removing the
vats for off-site disposal at a permitted landfill (Alternative
V-l) or incinerator (Alternative V-2) , or by removing the
30
-------
hardened material from the vats using a blasting technology
(Alternative V-3) for off-site treatment or disposal.
Because the No Action alternative is not protective of human
health and the environment, it is not considered further in this
analysis.
Compliance with XRARs
For Alternative V-l, by removing all production vats and
disposing of them in a TSCA/RCRA-permitted landfill along with
the latex material from the floor drains, all ARARs for
transportation and disposal will be satisfied.
For Alternative V-2, compliance with Federal regulations (RCRA
and TSCA) would be achieved by properly manifesting and
transporting the vats to a TSCA/RCRA-permitted incinerator.
According to the TSCA regulations, 40 CFR Part 761.60, solid PCB-
contaminated waste material containing more than 50 ppm must be
managed in a TSCA-permitted waste management facility.
For Alternative V-3, waste material would be properly disposed of
in accordance with TSCA and RCRA regulations, as appropriate.
Following vat and floor drain cleaning, confirmatory wipe
sampling would be performed to ensure that the surfaces have been
thoroughly cleaned to appropriate standards.
Iiono~Term Effectiveness And Permanence
Alternative V-2, Disposal of Vats Through Off-site Incineration,
destroys the contaminant-bearing material and, as such, offers a
permanent, long-term solution. Alternative V-3 would effectively
decontaminate the vats, and, through off-site incineration, could
offer a permanent remedy. While not treating or destroying
contaminants, Alternative V-l, Disposal of Vats in Off-site
Landfill, provides an effective means of disposal because the
contamination, which is essentially bound in the hardened
material, is further placed in a secure, regulated environment.
Reduction of Toxicitv» Mobility* and Yolyff through Treatment
Alternatives V-2, Disposal of Vats Through Off-site Incineration,
and V-3, Blast .Hardened Material from Vats, reduce the toxicity,
mobility, and volume through thermal or other treatment.
Alternative V-l, Disposal of Vats in Off-site Landfill, utilizes
no treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume, but .
does provide containment for the contaminants. Additionally,
because the material in the vats is hardened, the mobility of
contaminants is already greatly reduced.
31
-------
short— Term Effectiveness
Alternatives V-l, Disposal of Vats in Off-site Landfill, and V-2,
Disposal of Vats Through Off-site Incineration, are most
effective in the short term because the vats are removed intact,
resulting in less potential exposure to workers and a shorter
duration of remedial activity. Alternative V-3, Blast Hardened
Material from Vats, requires the containment arid collection of
residuals for disposal, and, as a result, is somewhat more
difficult to implement in the short term. In addition,
Alternative V-3 has the potential to produce an oxygen-deficient
environment for workers. Engineering controls would be utilized
to prevent disruption of the surrounding community.
Implementability
All of the alternatives are easy to implement, use widely
available equipment and materials, and use well-established
methods. All three alternatives can be implemented concurrently
with the soil and building surface alternatives.
Cost
Estimated capital costs, annual O&M costs, total present worth
costs, and the implementation timeframes of all of the remedial
alternatives for the vats are summarized in Table 7. Present
worth costs are based on a 30-year period and a discount rate of
5 percent.
Alternative V-l, Disposal of Vats in Off-site Landfill, has the
lowest overall cost. The next lowest cost is for Alternative
V-3, Blast Hardened Material from Vats, which costs twice as much
as Alternative V-l. Alternative V-2 is the most costly of the
three alternatives.
State Acceptance
The State of New Jersey has not as yet concurred with the
selected alternative for the remediation of the hardened material
in vats.
v Acceptance
Community Acceptance was evaluated after the close of the public
comment period. Written comments received during the public
comment period, as well as verbal comments during the public
meeting on August 10, 1992, were evaluated. Comments made at the
public meeting generally supported EPA's proposed remedial
alternative for the hardened material in vats. Those comments
are addressed in the Responsiveness Summary.
32
-------
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR BUILDING SURFACES
The No Action alternative for the building surfaces is presented
as Alternative S-l (A) under the soil remedial alternatives. A
comparison of the building remediation alternatives follows.
Overall Protection o Huia Health and the
The No Action alternative, S-l (A), would not be protective of
human health and the environment. The risk of exposure to the
contaminated building surfaces would not be reduced to any degree
under this alternative.
All four of the active remedial alternatives reduce the current
and future risks associated with direct contact with building and
equipment surfaces and, as a result, are protective of human
health and the environment. Alternative B-l, Washing/Surface
Sealing, uses surface sealing as the primary isolating mechanism,
while Alternative B-2, Blasting, and B-3, Scabbling, attempt to
remove contaminants. Alternative B-3, Scabbling, is not
appropriate for equipment surfaces, however, and would have to be
combined with one of the other alternatives to be truly effective
if equipment were to be left in place in the plant. Alternative
B-4 removes the entire buildings from the site, thereby removing
the contaminants and more fully protecting human health and the
environment .
Because the No Action alternative is not protective of human
health and the environment, it is not considered further in this
analysis .
Compliance with ARARa
If Alternative B-l were selected, the underlying surface would be
decontaminated to comply with TSCA regulations. Confirmatory
wipe sampling and chip sampling would be conducted, following
cleaning, to ensure that contaminants have been removed.
For Alternative B-2, compliance with TSCA regulations would be
achieved by removing the surface contamination on the concrete
walls and floors, as confirmed by wipe sampling and chip sampling
subsequent to surface cleaning.
For Alternative B-3, compliance with TSCA regulations would be
achieved by removing the surface contamination on the concrete
walls and floors, as confirmed by wipe and chip sampling
subsequent to scabbling.
Disposal of material under Alternative B-4 would comply with TSCA
regulations.
33
-------
Lena-Term Effectiveness and Pemanence
Alternative B-2, Blasting, and Alternative B-3, Scabbling, both
remove contaminated concrete for treatment and provide a
permanent, long-term solution. With Alternative B-l, Washing and
Surface Sealing, only the surface contamination is removed, and
any remaining contamination that may have penetrated beneath the
surface is sealed in place. Alternative B-l is effective only as
lora as the sealant is maintained and re-applied periodically.
A result, it is not a truly permanent solution. However,
Al Amative B-2, Blasting, and B-3, Scabbling, may permanently
damage the walls and floors if too much concrete is removed.
Alternative B-4, Building Demolition, removes the entire
buildings and provides a permanent solution to site
contamination, but relies on the integrity of off -site disposal
facilities.
of Toxlcitv* Mobility, and Volifl^* yhrouoh Treatment
None of the four alternatives employ treatment, except that used
for the disposal of residual, contaminated concrete or washing
solution. Alternative B-l, Washing/Surface Sealing, does not
reduce the toxicity or volume of contaminants, but reduces the
mob lity through containment. Alternatives B-2 (Blasting) , B-3
(Scaobling) , and B-4 (Building Demolition) do not reduce the
toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants, but merely removes
them from the site.
Short-Term Effectiveness
A. -rnatives B-l (Washing/Surface Sealing) , B-2 (Blasting) , and
B Scabbling) are expected to take approximately the same
at r.t of time to implement. Each of these alternatives should
be completed within one to two months from initiation.
A! rnative B-4, Building Demolition, is expected to take
a; >ximately six months to complete. While there would be some
i: -ase in traffic as a result of the off-site disposal of the
bv ing materials, coordination with local au orities would
a: the development of safe transportation s sures. However,
b' se the buildings would be removed from th - site, Alternative
B* /ould enhance the soil remediation alternatives by providing
added space with which to work.
Workers will be potentially exposed to the solvent mixture during
iff. .emerr. ition of Alternative B-l, and to airborne dust during
implementation of Alternatives B-2, B-3 and B-4- Personal •
protective equipment and dust control practices can be used to
manage the risk.
34
-------
All four alternatives are relatively easy to implement, use
widely available equipment and materials, and use well
established methods. Off -site disposal can be implemented along
with off-site disposal of drums, treatment residuals, and vat
waste.
cost
Estimated capital costs, annual O&M costs, total present worth
costs, and the implementation timeframes of all of the remedial
alternatives for the buildings are summarized in Table 8.
Present worth costs are based on a 30-year period and a discount
rate of 5 percent.
Alternative B-3, Scabbling, has the lowest overall cost.
Alternative B-l, Washing and Surface Sealing, has the second
lowest capital cost. However, when additional application of
sealant is considered, the cost of Alternative B-l is
approximately equal to Blasting (Alternative B-2), the most
expensive option. Alternative B-4, Building Demolition, has the
second lowest cost overall, which is approximately twice that of
Alternative B-3.
State Acceptance
The State of New Jersey has not as yet concurred with the
selected alternative for building remediation.
Acceptance
Community Acceptance was evaluated after the close of the public
comment period. Written comments received during the public
comment period, as well as verbal comments during the public
meeting on August 10, 1992, were evaluated. Comments made at the
public meeting generally supported EPA's proposed remedy for the
buildings on the site. Those comments are addressed in the
Responsiveness Summary.
SELECTED REMEDY
Section 121 (b) of CERCLA, as amended, requires EPA to select
remedial actions which utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery options
to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, EPA prefers
remedial actions that permanently and significantly reduce the
mobility, toxicity, or volume of site wastes.
After careful review and evaluation of the alternatives evaluated
in detail in the feasibility study, and consideration of all
35
-------
evaluation criteria, EPA presented Alternative S-4, Low
Temperature Thermal Desorption, for soils; Alternative V-l,
Disposal of Vats in Off-site Landfill; and Alternative B-4,
Building Demolition, to the public as the preferred remedy. This
remedy includes excavation of contaminated soils, on-site
treatment by low temperature thermal desorption, and backfilling
of treated material; excavation of the septic system and buried
drums for off-site treatment or disposal; dismantling the
production vats from their steel supports, draining any remaining
unhardened material into drums for off-site disposal or
incineration, and disposal of vats in an approved TSCA/RCRA
landfill; removal of the floor drains for disposal with the vats;
demolition and off-site disposal of the two on-site buildings;
and a performance monitoring program. The performance monitoring
program will include sufficient air monitoring prior to and
during remedial action to ensure that there are no significant
emissions to off-site areas.
The input received during the public comment period, consisting
primarily of questions and statements submitted at the public
meeting held on August 10, 1992, is presented in the
Responsiveness Summary. Public comments did not necessitate any
changes to the preferred alternatives. Accordingly, the
preferred alternatives have been selected by EPA as the remedial
solution for the site.
Some additional activities will be performed during the remedial
design and remedial action phases for the site. These activities
are described below.
• Extend the fence to include the contaminated areas beyond
the existing fenceline
• Further assess wetland area
• Perform additional groundwater investigations to determine
the impact of the site on groundwater
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Superfund remedy selection is based on CERCLA, as amended and the
regulations contained in the NCP. Under its legal authorities,
EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund sites is to undertake
remedial actions that are protective of human health and the
environment. In addition, Section 121 of CERCLA establishes
several other statutory requirements and preferences. These
specify that when complete, the selected remedial action for this
site must comply with applicable, or relevant and appropriate
environmental standards established under federal and state
environmental laws unless a statutory waiver is justified. The
selected remedy also must be cost-effective and utilize permanent
36
-------
solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource-
recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
Finally, the statute includes a preference for remedies that
employ treatment that permanently and significantly reduce the
volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes, as their
principal element. The following sections discuss how the
selected remedy meets these statutory requirements for the
Industrial Latex site.
Protection of FMtn* Health and the
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, dealing effectively with the threats posed by the
contaminants which were identified. The remedy will attain 1CT*
to 10* risk level for carcinogens and the HI will be less than 1
for noncarcinogens . The action will eliminate contamination in
remediating the soil and sediments, vats, buildings and
equipment, drums and hardened latex material, all of which
contribute to an increased health and environmental risk posed by
the site.
There are no short-term threats associated with the selected
remedy which cannot be readily controlled. In addition, no
adverse cross-media impacts are expected from the remedy.
Compliance with ARARs •
The selected remedy will comply with the substantive requirements
of the following statutes and regulations. These ARARs are
listed in Table 9.
Chemical-Specific ARARs
The contaminants of concern in the site soils will be remediated
to meet EPA Risk-Based Remediation Goals. The Remediation Goals
for the soil contaminants are listed in Table 5. All soils that
exceed these levels will be excavated to the average groundwater
table (approximately 10 feet below the ground surface) , for on-
site treatment in the LTTD unit. During excavation, confirmatory
sampling will be conducted around the perimeter of the excavation
zones to ensure complete removal of soils exceeding remediation
goals.
The remediation goals also represent the maximum concentrations
which will be attained in the treated soil before backfilling.
Treated soils will be backfilled on site provided confirmatory
sampling shows that the remediation goals have been achieved, and
provided that the treated soil passes TCLP tests. If the soil
fails the TCLP test, it will be a characteristic hazardous waste,
and will be managed in accordance with all applicable RCRA
regulations, including Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR; 40 CFR
268) . The treatment process will be designed such that the LDR
37
-------
standard for each applicable contaminant, as listed in 40 CFR
268.43, is satisfied.
EPA recognizes NJDEPE's request that soil at the site be
remediated to the levels specified in the proposed "Cleanup
Standards for Contaminated Sites'* which NJDEPE distributed to the
public for comments earlier this year. EPA has not identified
these proposed state regulations as ARARs since they have not
been promulgated by the state at this time. Therefore, any
additional actions which might be required (beyond the remedy
selected in this ROD) to remediate soil, vats, or buildings at
the site to the levels specified in the proposed state
regulations are not required by CERCLA, nor are they eligible for
federal funding under CERCLA. Any such additional actions may be
undertaken if they are not inconsistent with the remedy selected
in this ROD, and if they are performed with NJDEPE funding.
Location-Specific ARXRa
The soil remediation will be designed and constructed to minimize
the disturbance of areas identified as wetlands and to comply
with the requirements of Executive Order No. 11990 for the
Protection of Wetlands and the New Jersey Wetlands Act of 1970.
Before beginning remedial activities, an assessment of the
wetlands would be performed to determine the potential impact of
the remedial action. If necessary, a detailed plan for wetland
mitigation or restoration would be developed. The site is not
within the coastal zone as defined by the State of New Jersey.
The project area is not sensitive to the discovery of cultural
resources. Therefore, no additional investigation is considered
necessary.
Action-Specific ARARs
The process vats will be transported off site in accordance with
all RCRA regulations to an approved TSCA/RCRA landfill for
disposal.
The construction debris from the demolition of the buildings will
be segregated, if possible, according to the level of
contamination, for proper management.
Water sprays, dust suppressant chemicals, and other appropriate
control measures will be used a£ necessary during building
demolition and soil excavation to minimize dust emissions. Air
monitoring will be conducted to ensure compliance with air ARARs
(Table 7).
During excavation activities, appropriate erosion control and
soil conservation measures will be implemented.
38
-------
Excavated drums and latex material that are determined by
laboratory analysis to be characteristic hazardous waste will be
disposed off site in accordance with all RCRA and TSCA
requirements, including 40 CFR 263 standards for manifesting,
transporting, and recordkeeping.
Since the potential exists for treatment of soils classified as
RCRA characteristic waste, the LTTD treatment system will be
operated in accordance with RCRA Subpart X Miscellaneous Unit
requirements, if necessary.
LTTD will comply with air regulations, including the New Jersey
Air Pollution Control Regulations for VOC and toxic emissions
(NJAC 7:27-11 and 17), since airborne contaminants liberated from
the waste during treatment are carried via the nitrogen gas
carrier to the off -gas treatment system.
Sludge produced by the LTTD soil treatment system, which contains
the contaminants removed from the soil, will be disposed in
accordance with RCRA and TSCA requirements at a RCRA/TSCA-
permitted facility.
The production of noise in Bergen County, New Jersey, is
regulated by the Noise Pollution Code. This code states that a
sound source from within an industrial site may not exceed
receiving levels of 55 decibels in a residential zone. Local
ordinances on noise in Wai ling ton and Wood-Ridge indicate no
noise after 10:00 p.m.; noise reducers (such as mufflers for
machinery, sound barriers along the affected property line, and
temporary building enclosures for treatment equipment) will be
specified during the design phase, as necessary, to comply with
noise ordinances.
In order to mitigate risks, a site health and safety plan will be
developed and implemented. This plan will address personal
protective equipment for remediation workers, minimizing dust
exposure through water sprays or suppressant chemicals, and
restricting access to the excavation zone. This plan will also
address chemical usage, operation safety, and responses to
process leaks and unanticipated system upsets during start-up
associated with the LTTD equipment.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
e pyi*"111" ^ent Practicable
EPA has determined that the selected remedy represents the
maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment
technologies can be utilized in a cost-effective manner for the
Industrial Latex site. EPA has determined that the selected
remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs in terms of long-
term effectiveness and permanence, reduction in toxicity,
mobility, or volume achieved through treatment, short-term
39
-------
effectiveness, implementability, cost and State and community
acceptance.
The selected remedy utilizes permanent solutions and treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The selected
remedy represents the best balance of trade-offs among the
alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria.
Cost-Effectiveness
The selected alternatives are determined to be cost-effective
because they provide the highest degree of protectiveness among
the alternatives evaluated, while representing cost value. The
estimated total project cost is $18,000,000.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
By treating contaminated soil on site through the use of an
innovative process, the selected remedy addresses the threats
posed by the site through the use of treatment technologies.
Therefore, the statutory preference for remedies that employ
treatment as a principal element is satisfied.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative
presented in the Proposed Plan.
40
-------
FIGURE 1
SITE MAP
-------
CITY or
"CUMTISS-WHIGMT
ri: FACILITY
«rr 99 MttAW
art
LCOtND'
cwrTO«wi»«HT mcitm
rAciurt
mOUSTMAL LATEX FACILITY
wAixmaTON MUMCN^L WELLS
WALLNWTON TEST WCUJ
SCHOOL
SOURCE: NJDEPE.
I2OO
SCALE IN FEET
1400
D
FIGURE 2
WALLJNGTON MUNICIPAL
WELL LOCATION
-------
UJMMNSVCff
•AOfNIWNAL IMIS OT-
CONIAMMAINM
VM.M. KB < I
AMD
IMISC ISA AMD MM AS «*«M
CONIMMNAMN IS MO| tMUMCU
IO BACXCWaUMO U.«tlX WUIU(«C. Mi* »O NOI
9H. NUAN.*.
•t«u ••at
CONIAMNANTS rOUNO AT
SPCOnc LOCAIMNS:
.—--^ MM » »«M M •*•
V f BUIMMI • MB M
^^^y MtU «•« • ••>•••
M UMt I MM
MUM*«I
I M Uoll
. ^ •*!***'
• *^V ••»•'• > «•«
l» I
I •! IIMI • IBM
»••*••• » •»•
I «l UMI I *'
FIGURE 3
SOIL COirTAMINATION
SURFACE TO 2 FEET INTERVAL
-------
SMXI
H
\ \
a
a
l
FFCfNtV,
CONIAMMANTS FOUND At
matte
—
i •• uast I MM
«•» «IU«SI IMU1
I *t U«M I
V_/ ^J •"•^^•^"J'**
FIGURE 4
SOIL CONTAMINATION
2 FEET TO 6 FEET INTERVAL
-------
LEQUIL.
CONIAMMAN1S FOUND AT
SPtOFIC LOCATIONS:
MNNTNMM. UMITS
Of CONIAMWA1MM
< t
nm ammmmnmi > • •*•
M* •> 11*11 I • !• <•«•!
/&i I \
MNN1WNM. UMTS
OF CQNIAMMAIION
VMCNC KB < I
FIGURES
SOIL CONTAMINATION
6 FEET TO 10 FEET INTERVAL
* 1MT ISfM. |le.. MTVMC «M> MNYUUM) CVCtrWNCXS
W IMX KOAKO *M«S ««Hf POI CON1AMMAIMN IS NOT (WOrMXO
MIC COMPMI«aU .10 •MXGNOUN* U«USi IMMJOMC. MCt BO MOI
to H am. MJLAOO.
-------
LCGfHfc.
CONIAMMANTS FOUND AT
SPCOFIC LOCAHON&
* «•
MM* (I*. MncMc MW •rimiut) mamas M mcsc
MW »S VMIM rOI CONIOMMAIMM B MOI t*HMC(*
MU 10 MOICMMM* U«USi IWNUOMC. M.V M Mt
W H. *K MlAKft.
FIGURE 6
SOIL CONTAMINATION
10 FEET TO 14 FEET INTERVAL
-------
TABLE 1
CHEMICALS DETECTED IN ON-SHE SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES (•)
HUMAN HEALTH ASSESSMENT
(Organic*: ug/kg, Inorganics: mg/kg)
CMfftC*!
Ottt:tion (t>
••«!* of Btttetwf
Conetmr«t
•r otle»" 1263
Illicit »:ia
4,4 '-DDE
i »::'» (c)
2.3.7 B-IC::
' 3.7.6-TC53
1,2.3
1,2.3
1.2.3
ear
2.3.7
OCf
2.3.7,8-HpCOf
31 /46
2/19
SO /38
1 /SB
1 / 20
1/19
1 /
1 /
1 / 19
6 / SB
7 / 19
1 /
/
39
19
19
19
1 / 17
1 / 19
4 /37
1 / 19
2 /
1 /
3
8
7/
11 /
9 /
SB
19
SB
39
SB
36
19
2 / 19
11 / SB
3 / SB
1 / 19
15 / 39
3/36
3 / SB
7/SB
14 / 39
1 /9
2
1
1
S
11
IS
14 /
77
19
9
19
19
19
19
28
19
^ w •r
10 / 19
11 / 19
11 / 19
7/19
• / 19
1/19
95 • 4,000,000
130 • 140
102 • 170,000
400
110
1.280
4,000
SO
310
980
78
270
$6
94 • 370
160
SO
113 • 3,900
41
473 • 3.SOO
260
240 • $.900
7.SOO
$.300
12,000
1,100
510
7.300
sta
240
40 • 19,000
1SO • 3,600
$80
18,000
15,000
44
$5
36
36
$7
39
49
56
48
39
0.016
0.1$ • 0.17
0.04
0.43
1.4
0.07
0.1$
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.11
0.02
0.02
0.09
0.16
0.09
4
4
4B.7
y
4
47
7
j
7
S
y
m> (<1IO • <190)
MD («1,9M • «2,000)
m> «3fs • «400>
•D
•.I
•D
ND t«3T5 • «400)
•D (<37S • €400)
MO (O75 • «400)
MO
MO («9 • «9.4)
MO
MD (<375 • «400)
•D (<375 • «400)
MC (O.900 • «2,000)
MO (<375 • «400)
45 • 130
193 • 610
191 • 370
198 • 410
$4 • 310
140 • 208
209 • 450
NO (<375 • «400)
$4 • 49
345 - 1,000
223 • 280
170 • 720
295 • 750
..•» CO
""•0 ««>
0.11 • 0.13
2.94 • 3.27
0.14 • 0.06
at (t)
BD (f)
BD Cf)
MD (f)
MO (f)
• (f)
140 • ISO
40 i.ESO
20 1,170
70
149
165
IS,000
300
900
2S1
200
8,000'
145
59,000
22,000
42.030
26,003
47,000
44,000
146,000
41,000
147.000
Stf footnem er, fellooinc p«g«.
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICALS DETECTED IN ON-STTE SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES (a)
HUMAN HEALTH ASSESSMENT
(Organic*: uQ/kg, Inorganics: me/kg)
Ctitf.ieai
. '"rasa8
• AitiWy
• Artfic
||MU*i
•»ryl lirfr.
* Cayiu^.
CarClkT
Ce&i:t
Cssst-
• Cyl-.-.ot
Ire-.
Itis
*•;•»! •."
•"••j»*ti*
Wftw-v
*»ctt;
*C*tlt'^.
* lti»-'j"
$ss a-
vinas-iT-
• Zinc
• • Stit:*.t: at a c*t?'i
1C • kst e*tt:Tt: in tn
•reovency of
Otttction (b)
39 /39
10 / 39
35 /36
39 /39
16 / 39
13 / 39
38/39 .
31/39
29/39
•9/19
3/39
39 / 39
38 / 38
38 / 39
39 / 39
10 / 39
37 / 39
32 / 39
5 / 35
14 / 28
39 / 39
36 /36
e» study.
.at of potential co
:n. Otttction tin
•anat of Otttcttd
Concent rat ians
1,100 11.700
2.4
0.08
22
3
2
9
1
5
5
a.3io
2.5
17
0.2
*
223
0.2
$7
21.1
$1.9
210
C.I
$.9
$.940
26.1
•.2
37.7
1.6
31,100
124
4,150
411
0.7
22.2
1,390
1.1
494.4
44.3
17 $42
nctrn. Set text.
its «he«n in a*ronthtt
Sitt Specific
•eckiround
Cancent rat ians (e)
T.ttO -1,770
HD (t)
S.3
a.*
i
^
1.210
9.9
4.7
11. 1
HO
10,900
$4.2
1,770
275
0.7
t.7
555
•0 (<0.47
NO
15.4
4.0
$3.1
$
2 .
?i*$o
4.1
24.1
(*•)
12.500
•2.7
-1,»70
SOB
2.2
11.1
731
*0.48)
(1)
17.1
41.9 12.7^
es.
Concentrstient (C.e)
10,000 • 100,000
1
$.3
200
j
•
100
)
IS
20,000*
20
2,000
70
0.06
$
4.400
0.1
$.000
7.1
$00
$
1.500
0
7
30
$0.000
50
5.000
500
0.08
15
15,200
0.4
7.000
70
SI • IA
I • c^t.uy es--.roi tneietttt ttta an
(•> C^-*'t» »j-«»:t teil •••cits SO-03 te SO-17. S0>24 te SO-27 and tht *jplfc«ti ef W-14.
0^-iMt »:-t t;""«s »»TI*S it 0-2 *»»t im»rv»l: Sl*02, U>04. M-06. M-07. M-10 te
S(-1!. St-u. Si-15. ••« H-23 te SI-33. M0it%:tt in 0Mcn ttit eM*f.it«l mt tftttctM divitftd by tht tetcl iMBtr «f
••»»:yj»s. t>::uc-n9 tuost twvltt ftjtttte toy M/6C.
(O l«:«;-t.-c ti%.ti $5-01. SO-02 OTCl tti» du^liMtt Of SO-02.
CO $rj-tt t¥ u*ct-. Mti>eidt t»:*9"oons (tv»l»: Ctfty tt •!. (1979) (Mid-Atlantic ttflan).
»»• 6»:t;-ej-c Itvtic: IMC (1973, 1983), Ilirar tt at. (1977), WMtt and Vandtrttiet (1910). Winoter
•re r'ifi C??T). »wtkn>t (1981), lefctros (1983), Ititttr tt al. (1914), V»|t tt al. (1987), and ^pntt
tt »l. (198?). ,
(t) Ine'ific rtt>enii tt:k|revr« Itvtts 4ra* tuttti Catnty. M, «nd IwlKvan and UUttr Cawtia$, NV
(laf«9t« ••« $*,»ctltttt 1981). ' .
(f) Ottttticn hiritt M*t net eravioM by ttit latent try far tntsi altamieala.
(I) CMv tp«;Hit een|«rttrs e« »CODs I >»'» wft tveluattd. Iteautt aubturfaei aafl gata Mt
ries-ttr tt tettt eengrwft and
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
NEAR RAILROAD TRACKS (•)
HUMAN HEALTH ASSESSMENT
(Organfcs: ug/kg)
CMric.1
Or|i*iics:
CM ereo*
freajeney ef
Detection (6)
3/4
lent* ef Detected
Concentrations
80 • UO
«.$ - *8
Site IpeeifU
•aek|ro«ffid
Ceneentretient (e)
10 («90 • «9e)
•efienil leckifeund
Ceneent rations (e)
1*0 • ISO
•• • DC am »v»-i«tn fret »tudrr.
• • StitcTK it • efirr.ic*! ef potential ttnttm. |*e tent.
1C • he: ot:t:t*c in trnpit. Dttcctten (inits tho^n in
r ef
(a) »»TI«» »5 3i te SO-3?, cne tht *^Ke»Tt ef »-J4 (••< treed Treekt). nhieti Mere twted fer »di end
pejtieiott eiiy.
(t) Th* fvjTst- ef »»Tit* in wtiteft the ehvmicil MS detected divided toy the tout
•niivir: utiuc-n; tries* Mfletet rejectee by 6A/6C.
(t) l*:i;-e^-c n-eitt i;-0i. 15-02 end th* ejeiicete ef S0>02.
(d) Sc.-cr cf U-M^ ptmtiot MciB'ewne (evett: Carey et el. (1979) (Hid-Atlentte
POOR QUAU
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
AT THE RECREATIONAL/PLAYGROUNDS AREA (a)
HUMAN HEALTH ASSESSMENT
(Organic*: ug/kg, Inorganics: ing/kg)
Sltt Specific
*>«ouency ef tenet »f Pettcted tack|ro*rb tefitnal ••
Owricit Ott ten en (b) Cenctm rations Ctneentfttitn* CO Cmcmratii
Or|tiie»:
• 8i»(2-etf>ylhe*yl)phthal«tt A
4,4''6JT
pitie-m
• 6f'T»"Cttylp*'ti»l*ti
•eptaituof epssiot
PANS
fen»o(e)awt*re:»*«
trttetatey**^*.
8rtt9(t:
•ftt*>a*t*rt*»t
•yrene
035 ""
2.5.7,M»r
lr*I!Tr£:
A rat* * C
IflkT
8t*y! t Stfr
CalC'.r
If or.
lea:
Kajiti'kr
Nattaitlt
Ml'CWV
ftiettl
Vaia: •. jr.
•• • DC e*t* cvaiiab
• • St:t:*.«: at a e<
at • fcst etttctta in
1
2
i ^
1
A
2
tt A
« A
4
4
rre*« 1
3
A
2
3
A
£
A
2
A
3
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A-
i from »tu0y>
ie*ical e< poti
/A 120
f
f
/
^
^
^
^
^
f
f
/
1
20
42
T8
TO
AT
TT
T4
AT
65
1 A 0.14
/ A 0.05
/ 6,380
/ 1
/ S9.2
/ o.s
/ 1.AOO
/ 1.5
/ 9360
/A A3. 3
/ A 1.270
/A 163
/A O.S
/A T.T
/ A 19.2
/A *0
ntitt conetrn. S*t
• 1,600
2T
• 30
S9
10
• 1AO
- 180 '
• AeO
•460
• 220
66
• 100
• 210
• 0.41
• O.OT
• l.*00
• A.I
•76.A
• 0.6
• 2.360
• 12.1
• 16,100
• $6.2
• 1.S40
• 328
• 1.3
• 9.8
• 33.1
• 248
text.
m «3TS
10.S
m> (fc srciti to-01
(0) tewet ef wt»-s ptitie«tft teck|'o*4 (rvtlt: C«fty it •!. C19T9)
* ttvil»: IMC 1973, 1983), Blifwr *t •!. 0977), Mhftt «n« V»fMf»t(et (1983>.
W>, Pyekmt C198U, UMW C19I3), IwtUr tt »l. C190A). **: tt
Ct) nersic r*sen*l tactgrek^ Itvtl* 1rm 8uuu C«my, «J, and Sullfvtn M Ultttr
•<« Shaekltttt 1981).
-------
TABLE 1 (continutd)
CHEMICALS DETECTED IN OH-SFTE SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
(>2-24 FEET) (•)
HUMAN HEALTH ASSESSMENT
(Organic*: ug/kg, Inorganics: tug/kg)
C^:.
'•S»;.1I6D
itr.je't*
|is(2-eTr:ylhe*yl )ptthel
CMO?6D«11*1t
*,4'-p;i
Ci-n-CutylpMhtlate
5 .S ' -C •• CM e-epenzene
E?*rlb*iiene
e*>*isi
T e i jt->*
if (ft (tetti)
»»t
l*-:c-ci)s*>tr,raeene
l**2:(i Joyre^t
lt*.2: : c^' iye? am.Tf»ene
C'ryifif
r ;k;fi*.t'ie<>e
••t*,i*tnrt*ie
»yeie
lnry~r£:
A'iflC
St'yi 1 ii/n
C»y ifr
Ct :C1hT*
C'-s-iur.
Ccsi.t
Ire-.
lei:
fciCtei
fc*»ttiur.
* Stie-tijr'
• S •• i ve *
Sss-jr
• Tr.»; lii/r
vs"*3!u*.
frequency of
. Oetection (b)
36 / 121
1 / 26
ste 12/26
1 / 26
1 / 26
2/26
1/26
1 / 26
1 / 26
3 /26
3/26
1 / 26
2 / 26
2 / 26
1 / 26
2/26
1 / 26
2/26
26 / 26
25 / 26
26/26
S / 26
3/26
23 / 24
26/26
20 / 26
26/26
26/26
23/23
26 / 26
26 / 26
22/26
26 / 26 .
3/25
2/26
IS / IT
1 / 21
26 / 26
• 20/20
•anae of Detected
Concentrations
s • no, ooo
4, TOO
300 • 51.000
1.500
26
44 • 1T.OOO
2.800
2,300
•4
1 • 47,000
2 • 11.000
110
90
110 - 200
120
100 • 310
250
92 • 210
2.450 B.360
0.12 11.9
13.8 S5.5
0.25 0.53
0.23 0.42
1S6 14, ftOO
3.J 21.2
2.5 4.0
3.3 26.8
4.440 15,500
2.2 1T.7
32T 24,400
50.1 499
3.5 21.2
292 1,350
0.58 O.oB
0.26 0.27
43.9 209
0. 9
S.2 38.8
9.2 132
Concentrations (c,d)
•
50.000 100,000
5.3 T.I
«200 500
1 5
• •
•00 5,100
•0
S 7
IS 30
20,000 50,000
20 50
2.000 5,000
70 500
S 15
4.400 15.200
0.1 0.4
5.000 T.qpO
• »
70
IS • S6
• • $*;t:ttfl it etit»ie«l of potential eoneirn. Sot ttjt.
••• • He om available from study.
(•) C*»fiem «e»e te*tetf at
lf»
W-SI, »-7l, a-02, n-04, St-06
we , , -, -, -
te SI-OB, SI-10 te CI-12, N-u, M-15, tt-23 to 11-34 ond M-3T end the duplicates
ef 11-04, si-15. 11-34 end Si -3T at spec if U depth fntervala. Additional
•••w. St-03 88-05. 81-09 and 81-13 were tested for »CBs. "
_...*r tt ol. (1984), vogt et ol. (1987) ond Jones et ol. (1989).
(d) «: sitc'Spccific soil boring background snetes on available. Inorgsnic
regional backg^und levels fr«m Sussex County IU ond Sullivan ond Ulster
Ce-r.net, MT (loerngen ond ShackUtta 1981).
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICALS DETECTED IN TEST PTT SAMPLES
HUMAN HEALTH ASSESSMENT
(Units: mg/kg)
of
Otttcttd
Concentrations
Or|»nie»:
VeUtilti:
Acttont ISO
ttnzttt O.OSO • 16
2-l.ntnont 0.001 • ATO
fthylbtnstnt C.003 • MO
Telurw O.OU • 13,000
0.003 • 1,100
1260 0.200 • 100
0.*.10 • 2BO
0.240 • AS
*0
**
O.IT • A.f
l.t • 1.9
I • 17
LtM A • AA
lint 11-1*1
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SEDIUEHT SAMPLES
(fr«INCHES) (•)
HUMAN HEALTH ASSESSMENT
(Qrganics: uQ/kO. Inorganics: mg/kg)
Ctiir.ical
fr»qu»ney of
Otttctioft (b)
••nf t of ftittetid
(c)
8«latt
1.2-DieMerotthtn* (total)
a'nitrDtoci^fy lamina
(tetai)
ran* t >::»«
»,»,2.3.7,e-ma5
fi8-».».2,3.7,6-iu»D
f>8f.'»;2.S.7.e-»*COf
r*n-i|»;2|3,7.t-"*»f
•CM e !
fluoraithana
fluortnt
11 / 13
1 / 13
1 / 12
11 / 12
5 /
4 /
6 /
12
12
12
14
1 / 12
1 / 12
/ 13
13
13
U
S /
2 /
7 /
5 / 12
1 / 15
2 / 15
3 / 15
7/15
7/15
7/ 15
/ 15
/
/
15
IS
15
15
15
IS
15
/ 12
12
IS
13
10 / 13
7/13
7/12
10 / 13
/ 12
'•1
12
12
4
i|
*
12
12
12
12
IS
IS
1.000 • 250,000
110
42
$8 • 150,000
230 • 960
29 • 210
13-84
X • 9
•4
1.100
i • is
2 • 4
2 • 7
?:?
0.22
0.49
1.37
1.06
9.34
0.31
0.23
0.37
0.17
O.S5
0.81
2.08
0.2
ISO
At
27
350
140
280
19
215
25
45
2*0
O.K
,3
O.S2
2.52
11.4
13.1
189
0.33
1.45
0.48
1.42
1.25
4.44
5.6*
0.87
160
1,400
4,400
13.000
8.500
13,000
1,100
7.200
21,000
1,900
1,100
24,000
2,400
1,900
460
SOO
15,000
4,400
MO («200)
MD (<10>
U
'IS
MO («420)
MD «420)
HD C«6>
KD («420)
MO («420)
MD «6)
MO
HD
HD «6)
MD («*>
MD Ct)
MD Ct)
MO Ct)
0.9.
0.*'
S.07
MO Ct)
HD Ct)
MD Ct)
MD Ct)
MO Ct)
c.u
MD Ct)
MD
(1)
43
340
SOO
1,800
1,700
2,200
550
1,900
2.200
170
ISO
4.SOO
250
180
120
91
2,tOO
1,100
8ti foetnem on following p*|t.
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SEDIMENT SAMPLES
(M INCHES) (•)
HUMAN HEALTH ASSESSMENT
(Organic*: ug/kg, Inorganics: Rig/kg)
CM«MI
Ine'ji-.'tt:
• Antimony
• Antnic
ll'itF
* lt*y; liin»
• C»JP'.»J".
cSroHdr.
Co.>t>t
Coast*
• Cy**'0t
• it*:
fc»»*>tjitf*'
* M**i{l*
1 800
I
2.
25.
0.
0.
1.00
si
20.
8.09
10.
36
0«.
0.
8.
24
0.
8S.
15.
SI.
0
12 TOO
S4'
M.I
204
2.2
4.8
•.$00
io!4
«?4
8
32,450
054
7,450
2.840
2.1
11. 2
744
1.2
1.315
fr
8ita koceifie
Coneontrationa (d>
s,J*o ^
V «5.t)
1S.S
11.3
0.5
ID f 4D l£ )
2.840
i2.S
S.2
a
W <(1.S)
U.WO
I*
1.060
230
1.2
1.2
10.S
» (
«e CD
2*.5
•o
•-• • tit otti avtitatlt from ftuoy.
• « Stit:tt£ at eht«ie»l of pettntiat eonetm. 8ot text.
1C • ft:t e*tt:tM in aavtt.
I • Gytiity control inotcattt 4*t* art wwubla.
(a) tts^mnt taneltt Inctudt «!-02 throw|h «-U ond duelfcam of 81*06 ond 8t*1S
(t) *ht ruretr e< »a*«tti in which tht efitnieal »•> dttaetoe dividte* toy tht total
tej 6jt.'c»tt Mwitt «trt avtra|t« to catcutatt ^t ratft af datattod concamratf
(C) St:-:***.: »eii conetnt rat ions art e««p»rte to IM» t
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SEDIMENT SAMPLES
(12-18 INCHES) (a)
HUMAN HEALTH ASSESSMENT
(Organic*: ug/kg, Inorganics: mo/kg)
... . Frequency of lent* of Detected
**•"""' Detection (t>> Concentration* (c)
*fc:iDf-1260 7 / jt4po . §6,000
Oi-ft-fcutylBMftalete / 2* * 200
Oi*n*c-ctylp*tnyln*pr.tft*(ene / 270 - 450
^f-ttisM eropnffnol . / 140
Tttr»:Merottner« / 4 • 43
Telut-* / 2-21
TrieMe^oethene / 4 * 47
(ylenet (tetal) 4/7 1 - 2 .
*-t^a:ent i /
le-.ie:»)»ntfiraeene * /
l*-js;i)rye-ie
le*.je(t)< luefenthene
If.zots,*, i )Cf -yient
•e*.tQ(k)f iuerantfte'tt
•Ci5e*.2e(i,h)aMhracene
Dibt-jc^g-i-i
f lue*e*.thene
f iusr»-i»
Inoe->e(i,2.3-etd)pyrene
fc»y tr.« ;ti»
e««»^a^thfane
Pyrt^
AlkTin^
* A^»»"HC
ItflUP
• Sfylliir.
tt'.tiif'
Cesi \ \
Cess*-
Irci
• lets
Mtgieiiif
Wi^ii-veie
Mtrcwy
Kickcl
Seeitr.
• Zinc
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
f
f
/
/
/
't
7
33-250
170 • 1,100
110 • 940
190 • 2,200
140 • ISO
220 • 280
250 • 1,400
110 • 330
230 • 2*0
S60 • 2.100
18 • ISO
140 • HO
290 • 400
77 - 1.300
470 • 1.100
1,940 • 11,700
1.1 • 38.2
31.1 - 113
1.3-2.1
•09 • 4,850
3.3 • 1
17.1 • 111
10,400 • 31.000
1.2 • 228
1,280 • 2,400
** • 373
J.14 - 1.7
9.1 • 20
103 • 443
If .4 • 48
S4.3 • 3J8
lite-Specific •
Concentration* (d)
•JO («200)
tO («420)
•0 (•)
» (e)
W (e)
no (t)
310
120
•D (0)
•D (e)
VD (e)
» (e)
•D (e)
soo
1,100
1,700
2,200
150
1,900
2,200
170
130*
4.300
250
S80
91
2,100
3,100
$.3*0
h.s
11.3
0.9
2,140
5.2
48
14,400
56
1.040
230
1.2
1.2
& CO.T7,
• f*
••• • «o B*t» •v(il«6tt fran stutfy.
• • CA«"c*l of pettntial concern.
ID • net Otttette In ••nelo.
« • figtKty control indicate* tfata are m»ablo.
(D Srvlti Sf-03 to H-04, 11-09, 1E-11. R-13 and 8C-1S at 12-11 fncftes.
(t) TM r*ft*r of tanpiet ups'asieit aaieie K-01 (0-4 inches).
(t) Detection lieiiti etere net avevided toy the tabcratery for thete
-------
TABLE 2
ORAL TOJOCmr CftfTERIA FOR CHEMICALS OF
POTENTIAL CONCERN (•)
ORGANICS
Cfce»ical
Orsanies:
Aldrin
•enzeic »ciO
•enter*
Ria(2-etr,ylheivl> P-.thalate
lutylDenivlP'itnalate
CMorewtnane
*>'-ODE
Oi-«-butyt pMhalate
Ci-ri-ottyl pr.thatate
J.J'-pieMercwuioin*
l.l'BieMoroetne1*
1,2-0ieMoroetr,ene
1,2-C'0»eMoro*Tr,en«
trans- 1 .2-0 i eh 1 oroetfient
1,2-Oiehleropreparies
.>.4-Die»thylpn«nel
\itreteluenes, 2,6-
. .rtyt benzene
Meiach ( eroftut »a < me
Meiaehlereethane
•ethylene CMc'ioe
4>Htthylphtnel
••nitro$ooip"»nvt»mine
»U$ (tetai)
*tnmM,eree*Rnoi
;.3.r.8-iK:
>'ttr«eMerettn»ne
Tolutnt
1,1,1-TrieMero«th«n*
TrfeMerMttttnc
trfeftlere^lwe^ewtttn-w
Yriwthylbenit^s (1,2,4 ft 1.3,5}
lylcrws (tet«i>
Chronic KfD 1
(«g/kg*day)
3.0M-05
«.OOE*00
...
Z.ODf-02
;.oo£-oi
*»#
» • •
l.OOE-01
2.001-02
...
l.OOE-01
...
1.0DE-02
2.0DE-02 v
• • *
2.00E-02
...
l.OOE-01 .
2.01-03
1. 01-03
6.0E-02
5.00E-02
» » •
1.001-Oi (t)
3.00E-02
1.00E-09
1.00E-02
2.00E-01
9.00E-02
7.3SE-03
3.001-01
• ...
2.00E»00
>neirt«int>
'•ctor (6)
1.000
1
• • •
1,000
1,000
...
...
1,000
1.000
. • • •
1.000
...
3,000
1,000
3,000
1.000
100
1,000
100
1.000
100
100
1,000
1.000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
100
Target organ/
Critical
Iffeet (c)
Ifvtr
•alaiaa
Uvtr
livr/brain
...
... .
a»rtaUty
liver, kich
...
fci«>wy
» • •
bleed
liver
mgre/bleed
...
liver, ki**ey
kidney
kidney
liver
nerveut •ystta
...
fetotoiieity
liver/kidney
...
liver
liver, kidney
liver
liver
wrtality
...
CNS.awtdity
Source
ItJS
IRIS
II1S
HIS
IRIS
...
HIS
IRIS
MAST
...
MS AST
»••
MAST
IRIS
•CAST
IRIS
•EAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
•EAST
IRIS
Clement
IRIS
MA 198?
IRIS
IRIS
•EAST
MA
IRIS
•EAST
IRIS
»iepe
factor/
(•0/kg-day)-1
l.TOE*01
...
2.90E-02
1.40E-02
»••>
1.SOE-02
J.40E-01
...
•..
4.51-01
...
t.lE-02
...
...
A.SOE-02
...
*.§ot-oi
...
T.K-02
1.4E-02
7.50E-03
• ••
4.90E-03
7.70E»00
1.20E-01
1.56E-05
5.10E-02
..
-.
1.10C-02
•.
••
••
Mtig^t-e
Evioence
Class. (0
•2
0
'2
c
•2
D
0
12
C
•2
0
D
12
0
•2
0
C
c
•2
C
12
•2
•2
•2
•2
2
(•
> Source
.HIS
HIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
MEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
NEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
MEAST
MEAST
IRIS
IRIS
NEAST
IRIS
IRIS
•M footnotes on following page
-------
TABLE 2 (continued)
ORAL TOXJCfTY CRITERIA FOR CHEMICALS OF
POTENTIAL CONCERN (•)
mORQANICS
large: Org»n/
Chronic IfO Uncertainty Critical
Chemical (mg/kg-oay) Factor (b) Effect (c)
Inorganics:
Antinsny
Arsenic
•srium
•eryllium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cyanide
lead
aianganese
Hercury
nickel
Selenium and eoncs-nat
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
*. 001-04
3.00E-W
7.00E-02
S.OOE-03
S.OOE-04 (g)
1.00E-03 (h)
S.OOE-03 (i)
3.70E-02 (j)
2.00E-02
»•»
1.00E-01
3.00E-04
2.00E-D2
S.OOE-03
S.OOE-03
7.00E-03
2.00E-01
1.000
3
100
10
10 .
soo
1
soo
1
1.000
300
3
3
100
10
blood chemistry
skin
cardiovascular
total tumor
kidney
kidney
CHS
6) irritation
avelin degeneration
CHS
CMS
Kidney
nty ir> th* dit» availabla. Tha atandtrd treartainty factor* irctubt tha following:
V A 10-feto factor te account for tha variation in atntitivity anong tha aantiirt of tha (uman population;
• A 10'fele factor te acco.mt for tha irtcartainty in amapelation oniavt data to tha catt of ntmra;
• A 10-feie factsr to account for uncertainty in ixtrapel«tir>9 from Ittt than chronic MOAELs to chronic HOAilt; and
• A 10-feie fatter te account for the ineertainty in axtrapclating from LOAELt to NOAEK.
ifc) A targtt orgit it th* organ iwtt tentative to a ehawical'a teiie affect. IfD'a are baaaO on toxic cfftcta In the target organ.
' If on Ifo «at batafl on a ttuOy in Mhich • target organ MI net identified, an organ or •yato* knoun te fee affected by the
chaaicat it littee.
«d) E'A weight of Evidence for Carcinogenic Efftcts: W • IMwn carcinogen bated on adequate evidence In iHiien ttudiat;
112) • >rob»si* hknai carcinogen bated on inadequate evidence from huwn ttudiat and odeouate evidence from enieal atudiet;
Id • >wiitit hurji carcinogen bated on limited evidence fre».enia»l studies in tha obtence of nuwna ttudiet;
0] • Ket elatt'fied at to hinai eareinogenicity; and
A unit risk c< 5E-5 (ug/L)-1 hat been proposed by the lisk Assesaiwnt forum and this recemendation Ms been scheduled for
SAI revie«. Thit value it equivalent te 1.75 (a«/kg/day)>1 assuming a 70-kg individual Ingests 2 liters of Mter per day.
CD This IfD for caeritr is u»*C te assess drinking Hater exposures.
(h) This IfO for caxitr. is used te assess non-aqueous exposures.
Ci) The oral IfO for Chromiir. IV is conservatively used to assess chromium exposure*.
Cj) E'A hat repertea a drinking water standard of 1.S e*/l. This value MS converted to a dose assuming a TO kg individual
ingests 2 litert of water per day. __
•JOTE: HIS • Integrates •i*k Inforwation System. January WI-
NE AST • Met>tr. Effects Attettment Summary Tables, Annual 1*91.
• Me infenution available.
NA • Mealtr. Advisory, Office of Prinking water.
-------
TABLE 3
CUMULATIVE RISKS TO CHILDREN AND TEENAGERS (6-16 YEARS)
toil- or Sodia»nt
Denial Contact with
Surface Mater
TOttl CANCER RISK
On*S08
11-08
«e-os
41-06
11-03
2E-07
«-05
•oneanctr Ktk Out to Alt Ch«»eala
Innpental Ingest ion of
toil or Sodinnt
Dew*i Contact with
SeiI or Sedinent
OefMi Contact with
Surface vater
03)
-------
TABLE 4
CUMULATIVE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH FUTURE
LAND-USE CONDITIONS
Fathny Workers leeidents
Cancer tiak Out to All Choaicala
Incidental Ingestion of Soil
DtrMl Contact with Soil
Ingtstion of Croundwater
(vnconsotidated aquifer)
TOTAL CANCER RISK
SE-03
SE-M
a-oi
•»•»•
41-03
21-02
5E-03
11*03
• •*»•
31-02
Meneanetr Rick Out to All Ch«ieals
Incidental Ingestion of Soil
Denial Contact with Soil
Ingtstien el Grounduater >1(2.3) (a) »1(l.0>
(unconsottdatea aquifer)
OMJLATIVE HAZARD INDEX » 1 » 1
fOR EACH TARGET OR CAN (CO (12 for fete- <** for
toxicity) fetetexiclty,
1.S fer akin
effects, 3.* fer
OS effects)
(t) Although the hwd index fer ell ehewieel* exceeded 1.0.
tht cunwietive hazard indices fer specific tareet
critical effects did net exceed 1.0.
(e) xazard indices are aimed by target ergan.
-------
TABLES
EPA's RISK-BASED SOIL REMEDIATION LEVELS
FOR THE INDUSTRIAL LATEX SHE
CONTAMINANT
REMEDIATION GOAL*
in parts per Billion
(ppm)
MAXIMUM
CONTAMINANT
LEVEL (ppm)
Folychlorinated Biphenyls
PCBs
lb
4,000
Pesticides
Heptachlor Epoxide
0.1
0.22
Inorganics
Arsenic
Beryllium
Lead
3.6C
0.48d
500
49.4
2.2
89. 9
Semivolatiles
Benzo (a) anthracene .
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo (b ) f luoranthene
Benzo (k) f luoranthene
Benzo (ghi)perylene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Chrysene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
*Indeno(l , 2 , 3-cd)pyrene
0.4
0.1
°-5
0.8
3
46
13 .
1.4
0.2
13
11.0
13
11
5.1
280
21
6
6.4
• EPA Region 2 Remediation Coals (RG) developed According to the methodology
outlined in Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) Part B. The RG
applies to both surface and subsurface soils.
b The New Jersey Department of Environment and Energy has proposed surface
soil and subsurface soil cleanup standards for PCBs of 0.45 ppm and 100 ppm,
respectively (Proposed Residential Standards - NJAC 7:26D). Proposed surface
soil standards apply only to soils in the 0 to 2 foot depth interval.
c The remediation level for arsenic is the background concentration. The
corresponding RG is 0.4 ppm.
d The remediation level for beryllium is the background concentration. The
corresponding RG is 0.2 ppm.
-------
TABLES
COST SUMMARY
FOR SOIL REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE
S-1A: No Action
$-16: Minima! Action
$-2: Capping
S-3: IrvsCu Stabilization
»
S-4: Low Temperature Thermal De*orptton
$-5: Denomination
S-€: Solvent Extraction
•
6-7; OrvSne Incineration
$-8: Off-she LanoTilUng
C
O&M
PW
C
O&M
PW
C
O&M
PW
C
O&M
«PW
•c
O&M
PW
c
O&M
PW
C
O&M
PW
c •
O&M
PW
C
O&M
PW •
COST
m-
m
•"
.
•
.*
.
•
•
".
•
0
•0,000/5 yoars
•3,100
167,000
237,200/yM;
$.434,000
4,940,000
240.000yyaar
7^90,000
9,100,000
240,000\aar
m $11,200,000
* $10,480.000
• $ 4,848,700jy§«r
m' $17,100,000
• $-6,760,000
« $ i,073,600^aar
« $16.800.000
« $16,200,000
« $ 6.716.900/yeii;
• $23,700,000
« $ 7,190,000
• -$ 6,87Z900/yew
m $25,300,000
• $4,900.000
m $ 6,686,600^Mr
• $13,600,000
C « Capita! Costs.
O&M - Operation and Maintenance Cc«u.
FW « Present Wonh m • 6 ptretrn d*»uni nee.
-------
TABLET
COST SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL
ALTERNATIVES FOR HARDENED F3ODUCT M VATS
ALTERNATIVE
V-1: Remove Vats and DispoM In Ofl2: Remove Vats and Dispose In Off-Site (ndnarator
V-3: C02 Blast Latex from Vats
C
. 0
O&M
rw
C
O&M
rw
c
O&M
JOS
T
140,200
Gfyaar
140^00
§46,500
§46,500
tse.ooo
SB6.000
C • Ciprtal Costs.
O&M » Operation and Mainttnanet Cocts.
« Prtsern Wonh at a 5 ptroant discount rata.
-------
TABLES
COST SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL
ALTERNATIVES FOR BUILDING SURFACES
ALTERNATIVE
•*
B-2
B-3:
B-<:
Low Pressure SofcenVDetergert Washing FoBowed by
Surface Sealing
•
C02 Blasting of Bunding Surfaces
Scabbing of Building Surfaces
Building Demolition
COST
C
CM
fW
C
O&M
»»W
C
O&M
FW
C
O&M
FW
460,700
773,700
799,700
Cfyiar
799,700
•20,900
C^MT
820,900
•43.400
C^tar
•43,400
C * Capita! Costs.
O&M « Operation and Maintenance Costs.
FW * Present Worth it a 5 percent discount rate.
-------
TABLE*
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AND STATE APPLICABLE OR
RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARABS)
FOR THE INDUSTRIAL LATEX SITE
ARARs
CITATION
FEDERAL ARARs
Chemical -Specific ARARs
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) •- Identification and
Listing of Hazardous Waste
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
40 CFR Fart 261
40 CFR Part 761
40 CFR Part 50
Location-Specific ARARs
Clean Water Act (CWA)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Wetlands Permit Program
Protection of Wetlands
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards -- Non- attainment Zones
Action-Specific ARARs
RCRA Criteria for Classification of
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and
Practices
RCRA Hazardous Waste Management
Systems General
RCRA Standards Applicable to
Generators of Hazardous Waste
RCRA Standards Applicable to
Transporters of Hazardous Waste
RCRA Standards for Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities
RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
TSCA
33 U.S. C. 1251 Section 404
40 CFR Parts 230 and 231
33 CFR Part 330
Executive Order No. 11990
16 U.S.C. 661
40 CFR Section 6:302(g)
40 CFR Part 50
40 CFR Part 257
40 CFR Part 260
40 CFR Part 262
40 CFR Part 263
40 CFR Part 264
(Subpart X - Miscellaneous .Units)
40 CFR Part 268.43
40 CFR Part 761
-------
TABLE t (eonUnutd)
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AND STATE APPLICABLE OR
RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARS)
FOR THE INDUSTRIAL LATEX SFTE
ARARs
Occupational Safety and Health Act
National Ambient Air Quality
Standard
Clean Air Act -- Listing Criteria
CITATION
29 U.S.C. Sections 651-678
29 CFR Parts 1910,. 1926, and 1904
40 CFR Part 50
40 CFR Part 60 (New Source
Performance standards, Subpart E)
42 U.S.C. 7401, Section 112
STATE ARARs
Location- Specific ARARs
New Jersey Flood Hazard Area Control
Act
New Jersey Wetland Act of 1970
New Jersey Threatened Plant Species
Nev Jersey Endangered Species
Action-Specific ARARs
New Jersey Prohibition of Air
Pollution and Ambient Air Quality
Standards
New Jersey Air Pollution Control
Permitting Requirements
New Jersey Air Pollution Control
Regulations
New Jersey Worker and Community
Right-to-Know Act
New Jersey Emergency Response Notice
of Release of Hazardous Substance to
Atmosphere
New Jersey Water Pollution Control
Act •- Spill of Hazardous Substances
New Jersey Noise Control Act
NJSA 58:16A-50
NJSA 13:9A-1 et teq .
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
NJAC 7:27-5 and 13
NJAC 7:27-8
NJAC 7:27-11 and 17
P.L. 1983c.315
P.L. 1985C.543
Executive Order #161
NJSA 26:2C-19
NJAC 7:21(E)
NJSA 13:1G-1 at seq
-------
TABLE • (continued)
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AND STATE APPLICABLE OR
RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARABS)
FOR THE INDUSTRIAL LATEX SITE
ARARs
New Jersey Noise Pollution
Regulations
New Jersey General Requirements for
Permitting Wells
New Jersey Well Drillers and Pump
Install rs Act
New Jersey Requirements for Sealing
Abandoned Wells
New Jersey Solid Waste
Management Act
CITATION
NJAC 7:29-1
NJAC 7:9-7
NJSA 58.-4A-5 <
tt teq
NJAC 7:9-9
NJSA 13: IE et
ceq
------- |