Superfund Record of Decision: Grand Street Mercury Site, Hoboken, NJ (9/30/1997)

-------

-------
 •  Gross mercury decontamination of the buildings at the Site including recovery of
    available mercury, whenever possible;
 .  Identification and abatement of friable asbestos in the buildings at the Site;
 •  Removal and recovery of reusable fixtures, appliances, and recyclable scrap metal and
    other building components;
 •  Demolition of the two buildings at the Site using measures to minimize releases of
    mercury into the environment;
 •  Removal and off-site disposal of all demolition debris at EPA-approved facilities;
 •  Sampling of soils at the Site;
 •  Excavation  and off-site disposal of contaminated soils at EPA-approved facilities;
 •  Sampling of soils at off-site adjacent locations;
 •  Sampling of groundwater at the Site; and
 •  Assessment of off-site soil and groundwater data to evaluate the need for future remedial
     acton.
 DECLARATION OF 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. The remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative
 treatment or resource recovery 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.

 Because this remedy  will not result in hazardous substances above health-based levels
 remaining at the Site after implementation of the remedy, a five-year review pursuant to
 Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.§9621(c) is not required.
Jeanne M. F£ 'J7*^                             Dat
Regional

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                              Page


SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION                                      1

SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES                            1

HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION                             7

SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION                                  8

SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS                                   8

SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS                                             10

REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES                                       13

DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES                             15

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES                                       21
SELECTED REMEDY
27
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS                                        29

ATTACHMENTS
    1 - Figures and Tables
    2 - NJDEP Letter of Concurrence
    3 - Responsiveness Summary
    4 - Administrative Record Index

-------
                              DECISION SUMMARY

                              RECORD OF DECISION

                 GRAND STREET MERCURY SUPERFUND SITE
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION

The Grand Street Mercury Site ("the Site") is located at 720 and 722-732 Grand Street,
Hoboken, Hudson County, New Jersey (see Figures 1 to 3). The Site includes a former industrial
building converted from 1993 to 1995 into 16 residential/studio spaces (722-732 Grand Street), a
townhouse formerly used for various purposes which was also intended for residential conversion
(720 Grand Street), and an adjacent asphalt-covered parking lot. The building has approximately
57,500 square feet of interior floor space, and the average area of each residential/studio space is
approximately 2,600 square feet.  The building is approximately 100 feet by 150 feet, five stories
high, and is constructed of brick and masonry walls with an interior wooden structural system and
wood floors.  The townhouse is approximately 25 feet by 40 feet and has approximately 4,000
square feet of interior floor space on four floors.

Hoboken High School is located across the street to the northeast and there are over 40,000
residents that live within a one-half mile radius of the Site. A high-density housing complex is
located across the street to the northwest.  Residents in the vicinity of the Site use public water as
their source of drinking water.  Ground water in the area is not used as a drinking water source
The Site is located in a floodplain of the Hudson River.

The surrounding area is primarily residential, lightly mixed with commercial and industrial
properties.  In 1979, much of Hoboken (including where the Site is located) was rezoned from M-
1 (Manufacturing) to its p^sent zoning classification of R-2 Residence District (Stabilization).
The R-2 zoning encourages new residential development and conversion of existing non-
residential structures to residential use as a fundamental component of the zoning change. Recent
changes in area use from manufacturing to residential in the area are readily observable.

SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

Based on information gathered to date, owners of the Site include:  the Cooper-Hewitt Electric
Company, first incorporated in New York (1910-1911), later incorporated in New Jersey (1911
to approximately 1919); the General Electric Vapor Lamp Company (approximately 1919-1939),
General Electric Company (1939-1948); Cooper-Hewitt Electric Company (1948-1955, a/k/a
Sperti Sun Lamp, Sperti-Faraday, and Sperti Drug Company); the Quality Tool and Die Company
and John Pascale and Marie Escolino (1955-1969); the Quality Tool and  Die Company and John
Pascale (1969-1979); the Quality Tool and Die Company and David and  Sherrill Pascale (1979-
1993);  the Grand Street Artists Partnership (1993-Present); the Grand Street Artists
Condominium Association (1994-Present); and various individual Unit owners (1995-Present)

-------
Temporary and permanent certificates of occupancy were granted to occupants of 15 of the 17
planned residential Units beginning in 1994.

The Cooper-Hewitt Electric Company (Cooper-Hewitt 1) purchased the Site, apparently
transferring its operations from New York City in 1910, and manufactured mercury vapor lamps
at the Site thereafter. The lamps were composed of cylindrical glass tubes approximately four feet
in length Mercury vacuum pumps were utilized to exhaust the interior airspace within the glass
tube. The tubes had an iron electrode on one end. A pool of liquid mercury on the other end
provided the mercury vapor source which emitted light when subjected to an electrical current
induced through the iron electrode.

The General Electric Vapor Lamp Company (GEVLC) purchased the Site from Cooper-Hewitt 1
in approximately 1919 and manufactured mercury vapor lamps similar in structure to those
manufactured by Cooper-Hewitt 1. Mercury-containing connector switches and "Glow Lamps"
containing either neon or argon gas (those cor.'mining argon gas also requiring a small amount of
mercury) were also manufactured. GEVLC apparently continued the manufacture of mercury-
containing products at the Site until 1939, when its name was changed to the General Electric
(GE) Company GE continued these operations until 1948.

In 1948, a "new" Cooper-Hewitt (Cooper-Hewitt 2) was formed (a different entity from Cooper -
Hewitt 1). Cooper-Hewitt 2 purchased the Site from GE and manufactured mercury vapor lamps
similar to those described above, as well as other lamps requiring mercury in their manufacture
(eg., Sperti Sun Lamps, Glow lamps, and fluorescent tubes). From 1948 - 1955, Cooper-Hewitt
2 leased the portions of the industrial building to Quality Tool and Die Company and John
Pascale, Sr.
®>
In 1955, Cooper-Hewitt 2 sold the Site to John J. Pascale, Sr., Marie Pascale, and Quality Tool
and Die Company, a company which was operated by John J. Pascale, Sr., from 1940 to 1979
In the 1950's, John J. Pascale, Sr, formed an additional corporation, Majoda Tc \ and
Manufacturing (Majoda), which operated a tool manufacturing facility at the Site. In 1963,
Majoda moved to 51 Newark Street, Hoboken, NJ, then moved back to the Site in 1966 Quality
Tool and Die Company and Majoia manufactured precision tools and fabricated precision dies for
the medical, pharmaceutical, commercial and aerospace industries After 1955, Quality Tool and
Die Company leased part of the Site to Cooper-Hewitt 2 which continued its lamp manufacturing
operations until approximately 1965, apparently including at least the fifth floor. From 1955 to
approximately 1965, Cooper-Hewitt 2 did business at the Site, apparently under the names of
Cooper-Hewitt Electric Company, Sperti Sun Lamp, Sperti-Faraday, and Sperti Drug Company
Cooper-Hewitt 2 apparently moved all operations to Erlanger, Kentucky in approximately 1965

Mercury associated with vacuum pumps and the manufacture of mercury vapor lamps and
mercury-containing switches are believed to be the primary contaminant sources for the mercury
contamination prevalent throughout the buildings and the parking lot. Lamps of this type, among
numerous other types of lamps requiring lesser amounts of and/or no mercury in the

-------
manufacturing process, were manufactured at-the facility from 1910 to approximately 1965.

In 1971, all stock in Majoda was given to John Pascale, Jr. By May 1979, John Pascale Sr. and
the Quality Tool and Die Company transferred the property at 720 and 722-732 Grand St. and all
shares of stock in Quality Tool and Die Company to David Pascale. Sherrill Pascale was added to
the Deed to the property in 1993. In August 1982, John Pascale Sr. initiated a lawsuit seeking to
set aside these transfers. In October 1985, a New Jersey Court (Chancery Division) upheld the
transfer of the property and Quality Tool and Die Company. In March 1987, a New Jersey
Appellate Court reversed the 1985 decision and set aside the transfers. In October 1988, the New
Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court Decision and reinstated the judgement of the
Chancery Division. Quality Tool and Die Company ceased conducting business at the premises in
approximately 1988.

In 1990, David Pascale filed an application for cessation of operation for Quality Tool and Die
Company under the New Jersey Environmental Cleanup and Responsibility Act (ECRA) statute
In his initial notice to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP),
including discussions of previous operational history on the Site, Mr. Pascale certified to the
NJDEP that the only area of concern was an underground heating oil tank, which he had removed
prior to his ECRA application. In follow-up correspondence with the NJDEP, David Pascale
indicated that "[b]oth GE and Cooper-Hewitt Electric Company manufactured light bulbs [at the
Site] as a joint venture." In his ECRA application, David Pascale of Quality Tool and Die
Company did not identify previous manufacturing of mercury vapor lamps at the Site. After
removing soil which contained petroleum hydrocarbons and placing an asphalt cap over the
parking lot, and recording a Declaration of Environmental Restriction and Grant of Easement
(DERGE) with the County Clerk's office, David Pascale received an approval of his ECRA
"negative declaration" by NJDEP on February 8, 1993. The DERGE restricted future disturbance
of the asphalt cap. NJDEP rescinded the negative declaration approval in December 1996 This
rescission was based upon the fact that the application did not accurately depict the full type,
extent, and n gnitude of the contamination, both inside the buildings on the premises and outside
on the land around the buildings. The rescission indicates that since all areas of concern at the
Quality Tool and Die Company were not identified, a cleanup plan necessary to address mercury
contamination at the industrial establishment was not developed and implemented.

David Pascale sold the Site in 1993 to the GSAP. The GSAP is a partnership formed primarily by
the dissociated residents of the Site. The partnership was formed to hold title to the Site during
the time from its purchase of the Site in August 1993 until final certificates of occupancy were
issued for each unit, allowing the individual unit owners to "purchase" their units from the GSAP
(in essence "purchasing" the units from themselves). The GSAP intended to subdivide and
renovate the property into 16 units in the industrial building and one unit in the adjacent
townhouse. During subsequent subdivision and renovation activities at the Site, members of the
GSAP noticed small amounts of a silvery substance which appeared to be mercury in the building
on two occasions in 1993 and one in 1994. These observations were attributed to demolition of
air handler units and associated thermostat or switching controls, and to ajar of mercury that was

-------
broken and spilled in one of the units.

After renovation and the construction of residential/artist studios, residents began moving into the
building under temporary Certificates of Occupancy (COs) in mid to late 1994.  Title was
transferred for the common areas in the buildings from the GSAP to the Grand Street Artists
Condominiurrf Association ("Condo Association") in October 1994. From March to December
1995, title was transferred from the GSAP to 15 of the 17 individual unit owners which had
obtained final COs from the City of Hoboken.  Two of the 17 planned units were never granted
Final COs. Two of the units which had been granted final COs were sold to other parties after
transfer from the GSAP  One unit owner lived in the space and also rented out space in the unit
to four individuals.

During renovation of 5th floor Unit 5D in January 1995, puddles of mercury were observed in the
subflooring.  The prospective future unit owner unsuccessfully attempted a cleanup by collecting
and consolidating  the puddles of mercury into vials and by removing mercury contaminated
flooring. Mercury contamination continued to be problematic in that unit after the cleanup
attempt.

As a result of the contamination in this unit, the Condo Association hired a private contractor,
ENPAK, in March ' 995, to conduct a mercury vapor survey of the building. In a March 28,  1995
draft report prepared by ENPAK, mercury vapor concentrations' ranging from 5 micrograms per
cubic meter Gug/m3) (5th floor) to 888 Mg/rn3 (see description at Chapter 2.1.1., below) were
detected in six units on the 3rd, 4th and 5th floors. ENPAK recommended that a mercury cleanup
be performed in the building.

On August 25,  1995, a private contractor, Environmental Waste Management Associates, Inc.
(EWMA), was hired to perform a mercury abatement on the 5th floor. Abatement activities
occurred in September and October and involved removal of the entire top layer of flooring 
-------
visited the Site in September 1995 to inspect the remediation activities. The HRHC observed
mercury contamination on the fifth floor of the building.

Immediately after the October abatement activities in Unit 5D, on November 2, 1995, a resident
of Unit 4 A reported seeing drops of mercury on the oven and kitchen countertops in that unit  On
November 3-1995, EWMA returned to the Site, cleaned the kitchen area, and sealed a crack that
ran the length of the ceiling along the brick wall in Unit 4 A

On November 8, 1995, a mercury vapor survey was performed in units 3 A, 4A, and common
areas of the building, by Detail Associates, at the request of the occupants of 3 A and 4A. In a
report prepared subsequent to that survey, mercury vapor levels detected in the breathing zone air
in 3 A ranged from 4 to 9 Mg/m3, and from 24 to 77 Mg/m3 at wail and floor openings. Mercury
vapor levels in the breathing zone air in 4A ranged from 7 to 21 /^g/m3 and from 14 to 26 /u.g/m3
at wall and floor openings.  Common areas on the 3rd and 4th floor yielded mercury vapor
concentrations from 12 to 18 ^g/m3.  Mercury vapors were detected at all interior sampling
points2 After the investigation, Detail recommended that investigated areas "...be vacated until
such time that the exact source and extend [sic] of contamination is identified and ftill remediation
and cleanup procedure [sic] implemented."

In late November and early December 1995, five residents provided urine samples to their private
physicians for analysis. Results from three of the tests were provided to the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) for review in December 1995.  Two of these samples
had elevated mercury concentrations (36 micrograms per liter (/^g/L) and 65 /zg/L)-  Both of these
elevated samples were from young children.

In November 1995, the Hoboken Health Department (HHD) was notified by one of the residents
that a mercury contamination problem existed and the HHD's assistance was requested.

O  December 22, 1995, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a request
from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, to assist the HHD in assessing the
extent of elemental mercury contamination at 720 and 722-732 Grand Street.

On December 27, 1995, EPA and its contractor surveyed 15 units, the attached townhouse and
common areas on each floor3 for mercury vapor.  A Jerome 431 -X Mercury Vapor Analyzer was
utilized in obtaining concentration values of mercury vapor. Air concentrations of mercury were
measured at several locations in each unit at heights of six inches and five feet above the floor.
Detectable levels of mercury vapor were encountered in nine condominium units. Detectable
concentrations of mercury vapor were not found in the hallways.  EPA personnel observed two
separate puddles of mercury on a tar layer in the subflooring of a fifth floor unit, 5D.
       2Data presented in Section 2.1.2 of the FFS; relevant risk-based standards are in Section 3.2 of the FFS.

       3See discussion at Section 2.1.3 of the FFS.
-------
In addition to the environmental testing performed on December 27, 1995, representatives from
the HHD and the Hudson Regional Health Commission (HRHC) collected urine samples from 31
persons (28 owner/occupants, one owner/non-occupant, and two workers), which were analyzed
for total mercury.  Mercury concentrations ranged from 3 to 102 Mg/L, and 20 of the 3 1 samples
had mercury concentrations equal to or greater than 20 ,ug/L.  Additionally, 5 of the 6 children
monitored exhibited mercury levels in excess of 20 yug/L in their urine.  ATSDR later stated in a
Public Health Advisory that adverse health effects are associated with mercury levels greater than
20
 On January 2, 1996, EPA received a request from the NJDEP to conduct an emergency removal
 action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of
 1980 ("CERCLA" or "Superfund"), as amended, 42 US C  § 9601 et seq.. and to continue
 assisting the HHD in assessing the extent of mercury contamination at 720 and 722-732 Grand
 Street.

 On January 3, 1996, ATSDR issued a Public Health Consultation which concluded that an
 imminent health hazard existed at the Site, based upon the elevated levels of mercury in the urine
 of the residents, presence of puddles of elemental mercury in the floors, and elevated levels of
 mercury vapor in  the air. ATSDR recommended that the residents be dissociated from further
 exposure to mercury in the buildings.

 On January 4, 1996, the HHD, based on advice from the New Jersey Department of Health
 (NJDOH), issued an "Order of Health Officer", which ordered the residents to vacate the
 buildings by January 9, 1996.  Due to a severe snowstorm, the deadline of January 9,  1996 was
 extended two days.  All occupants had vacated the buildings by 4:00 PM on January 11, 1996

 On January 4, 1996, EPA authorized a Superfund removal action at the Site.  The removal action
 included providing temporary relocation for residents of the Grand Street Site, providing for
 security and maintenance of the buildings, continued sampling and screening of the buildings as
 well as the personal possessions of the residents, and transportation, treatment, and/or disposal of
 contaminated materials generated during previous remediation efforts.

 On January 22, 1996, ATSDR issued a Public Health Advisory (PHA) that proclaimed "an
 imminent public health hazard is posed to prior occupants of [720 and] 722[-732] Grand Street
 from past, current and potential future exposures via inhalation, direct dermal contact and possible
 ingestion of metallic (elemental) mercury and mercury vapor."  In addition, the PHA states "the
 potential exists for mercury-contaminated possessions to be taken out of the building to continue
 to expose residents of [720 and] 722[-732] Grand Street, contaminate other areas and expose
 other members of the public."

 EPA proposed the Grand Street Mercury Site for inclusion on its National Priorities List (NPL)
 on December 23,  1996 (61 FR 67678). The NPL is a list of priority releases for long-term
 remedial evaluation and response under EPA's Superfund program.  Only those Superfund sites
-------
on the NPL are eligible for fund-financed remedial action. The Site was declared Final on the
NPL on September 25, 1997 (62 FR 50441).

In order to assist in developing and analyzing remedial alternatives for the Site, EPA developed
an evaluation of means of remediating mercury in the buildings at the Site. Accordingly, a
"Technical Engineering Evaluation for Mercury Remediation at the Grand Street  Site" was
completed on March 11,  1997. In addition, in April 1997, EPA completed a Baseline Risk
Assessment for the Site.  A draft Focussed Feasibility Study (FFS) that analyzed remedial
alternatives for the Site was completed in July 1997.

From February to November 1996, Information Request Letters were sent to parties which EPA
believed to have information regarding the Site. In August 1996, General Notice Letters, issued
pursuant to Section 104(e) of CERCLA were sent to several potentially responsible parties
(PRPs), including past owner/operators of the Site, informing them of their potential liability and
affording them the opportunity to take over th: removal action at the Site. The PRPs declined to
take over the removal action.

In February 1997, EPA issued an Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) to General Electric and
John J. Pascale, Sr, to take over temporary relocation, site security, building maintenance, and
other activities from EPA. EPA modified the UAO in May 1997 to remove temporary relocation
activities.  In May 1997, the PRPs notified EPA of their intent to comply with the UAO. EPA
approved the PRP's Site  Work Plan, required by the UAO, on July 15, 1997.  The PRPs initiated
work at the Site on August 4, 1997. Temporary relocation of prior building residents is ongoing
and continues to be administered by EPA  EPA plans to continue to perform periodic monitoring
of mercury at the Site.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

The FFS report and the Proposed Plan for the Site were released to the public for comment on
July 9, 1997. These documents were made available to the public in the following information
repositories: the EPA Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, New York, NY, and the City of tkboken
Public Library, 500 Park Avenue, Hoboken, NJ.

The notice of availability for the above-referenced documents was published in the Jersey Journal
on July 9 and 12, 1997, and the Hoboken Reporter on July 13, 1997.  The Proposed Plan was
mailed to approximately  150 individuals on a mailing list maintained by EPA for the Site on July
8, 1997.  .The public comment period on these documents was scheduled to be held from July 9,
1997 through August 7,  1997. However,  at the request of PRPs, the  public comment period  was
extended through September 8, 1997.  A notice extending the comment period was published in
the Jersey Journal on August 2, 1997, and the Hoboken Reporter on  August 3, 1997, and the
notice was mailed to individuals on the mailing list on August 4, 1997.
On July 16,  1997, EPA conducted a public meeting at the Hoboken High School.  At this
-------
                                            8

meeting, EPA representatives informed local officials and members of the audience about the
Superfund process, discussed the findings of the FFS and Proposed Plan, received comments from
interested citizens, and responded to questions regarding the remedial alternatives under
consideration. Responses to the comments received at the public meeting, and in writing during
the public comment period, are mcluded in the Responsiveness Summary which is included in this
Record of Decision (ROD) as Attachment 3.

This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the Site. This decision was
chosen in accordance with CERCLA and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).  This decision was based on the
Administrative Record for the Site.

SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION

This ROD  selects permanent relocation of the former residents of the Site.  In addition, it
addresses the imminent threat to human health and the environment posed by mercury
contamination in the two buildings and in soil at the Site by requiring demolition of the buildings
and excavation of off-site disposal of the soil at the Site.  This ROD also requires an investigation
of groundwater underlying the  Site and soils at adjacent properties.

SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS

EPA conducted investigations intermittently from December 1995 to August 1997  The purpose
of these investigations was to determine the nature, range and extent  of contamination at the Site
and included the following activities: confirmatory sampling of visible elemental mercury in
flooring in the building, air sampling for mercury vapors within the buildings at the Site and inside
two buildings on properties adjacent to the  Site; sampling for mercury contamination in wood,
brick, tar and sediments in the buildings at the Site; sampling for mercury contamination in soil
under the parking area at the Site and in the back yard of a property adjacent to the Site.

Detailed results of these investigations can be found in the Chapter 2  of the FFS report, which
was completed in July 1997 These results, summarized  in the following sections, identify the
principal threats (areas of significant contamination) posed by the Site, which are addressed in this
ROD

Buildings

Air

Using  a combination of field analytical and  laboratory analytical techniques, approximately 2,000
air samples have been collected to monitor interior air space within the buildings at the Site for
mercury vapors. Mercury vapors were detected in approximately 70 percent of these samples.
Mercury vapors were detected in all areas within the buildings at varying concentrations.
-------
Mercury vapor concentrations have been observed to be temperature dependent, rising
proportionally to temperature increases. Mercury vapor concentrations from samples taken at
heights representative of occupant breathing zones (from two to five feet) have been detected as
high as 301 micrograms of mercury per cubic meter of air (301  ,ug/m3). Mercury vapor
concentrations from samples taken in cracks and holes in flooring have been observed to be high
enough to exdeed the upper detection limit of 0.999 Mg/m3 for field instrumentation on numerous
occasions.  Tables 1A and IB present the results of two detailed air sampling events conducted by
EPA.

Interior air was also monitored at two properties adjacent to the Site using field analytical
techniques. Mercury vapors were not detected at levels  of concern at either location.

Flooring

Dense, silvery liquids observed in the flooring in the building were collected and confirmed by
laboratory analyses to be elemental mercury. Liquid elemental mercury has been observed in the
flooring of 13 of the 16 units in the building.

Sediments

Sediments in floor drains and sump pits were collected and analyzed for mercury contamination.
Results of these analyses identified mercury concentrations ranging from 36 to 2,540 milligrams
per kilogram (mg/kg). Table 2 presents the results of sediment sampling conducted by EPA.

Wooden Structure

Wooden structural components of the building were field screened with an X-Ray Fluorescence
(XRF) analyzer, which identified mercury contamination on screened surfaces up to 6,300 mg/kg.

Brick

Brick components on the fourth and fifth floors of the building were field screened with an XRF
analyzer, which identified mercury contamination on all surfaces screened.  Samples of brick were
collected and all were laboratory confirmed to be mercury-contaminated, at concentrations
ranging from 40 to 9,110 mg/kg. Table 4 presents the results of brick sampling conducted by
EPA.

Asbestos:

Asbestos has been identified as being likely present in two media at the Site: in tar paper between
finished flooring and sub-flooring; and in roofing materials.

Soil
-------
                                           10

Fifty-two soil samples were collected from underneath the asphalt-capped parking lot at the Site
which were analyzed for the presence of mercury. Mercury concentrations ranged from 0.77 to
290 mg/kg. Table 5 presents the results of discrete on-site soil sampling conducted by EPA

Twenty-one soil samples were collected from the backyard and two samples were collected from
the basemehFof a property adjacent to the Site which were analyzed for mercury to assess
potential site-attributable impacts. Mercury was not observed above the lower detection limit of
instrumentation in one sample from the basement. All other analyses detected mercury
concentrations ranging from 0.06 mg/kg to 39 mg/kg which, as will be explained below in the
Summary of Site Risks section, are levels which do not present a risk to human health. Table 6
presents the results of discrete off-site soi' sampling conducted by EPA.

Historic Preservation Analysis

The nature of operations and type of building at the Site indicate that the Grand Street Mercury
Site may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). During
Remedial Design, a Stage I Cultural Resources Survey will be conducted which will  assess the
Site's eligibility  Should the Site be  eligible for inclusion, EPA would  be required to conduct
some recordation prior to the demolition of the building in accordance with the National Historic
Preservation Act.
 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

 A Baseline Human Health RisteAssessment was developed as part of the FFS to evaluate the
 potential current and future impacts of mercury vapors in the building and mercury contamination
 in soil on human health and the environment, assuming the Site is not remediated.

 Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment

 To perform a Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment, the reasonable maximum human exposure
 is evaluated.  The following four-step process was used by EPA to conduct the Baseline Human
 Health Risk Assessment:

 1    Hazard Identification, Tables 7A and 7B - identifies the contaminants of concern at the Site
     based on their toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and concentration.
 2.   Exposure Assessment, Table 8 - estimates the reasonable maximum concentration of
     contaminants to which people may be exposed by considering the frequency and duration of
     these exposures, and the potential pathways (for example, inhalation of chemical vapors).
 3.   Toxicity Assessment, Table 9 - determines the toxic effects of exposure to the contaminants.
 4    Risk Characterization, Tables 10 A and 10 B - provides a quantitative assessment of the
     overall current and future risk to people, plants and wildlife from Site contaminants, based on
-------
                                            11

    the exposure and toxicity information, including a discussion of uncertainties.

The baseline risk assessment began with the determination that mercury was the primary
contaminant of concern which is representative of Site risks (see Table 8). EPA monitoring of the
buildings and soil at the Site identified this contaminant as potentially available to human
receptors in environmental media, including indoor air and outdoor soil under a parking lot. The
baseline risk assessment then evaluated the health effects which could result from exposure to
contamination as a result of various exposure pathways including:

    1) inhalation of elemental mercury vapor in indoor air by adult and child residents;
    2) inhalation of element il mercury vapor in indoor air by adult workers;
    3) ingestion of elemental mercury in outdoor soil on-site by child residents;
    4) ingestion of elemental mercury in outdoor soil on-site by adult workers; and
    5) ingestion of elemental mercury in outdoor soil off-site by child residents.

In the exposure assessment, the potential for human exposure to the chemicals of concern, in
terms of the type, magnitude, frequency,  and duration of exposure, is estimated. The assessment
is made for potentially exposed populations at or near the property considering both the current
situation and potential future conditions.  Since residential activities have taken place on the
property most recently, and because the area where the Site is located is zoned R-2 Residence
District (Stabilization), and residential development is anticipated by the City of Hoboken,
residential exposure scenarios are regarded as the most likely scenarios that will continue in the
future.  Because  at the time the Risk  Assessment was developed, EPA was not entirely certain
that zoning considerations would preclude commercial use of the property, EPA evaluated future
use exposure scenarios for workers. Further, EPA's assessment of the off-site child exposure
scenario was considered to be a "current" use scenario which would also likely continue in the
future.  Table  8 presents a listing of the exposure pathways evaluated for the Site.

Mercury is not known nor suspected of causing cancer in animals and/or humans.  Noncancer
health effects of mercury exposure include tremors in the fingers, eyelids,  lips, hands and arms,
depression; irritability; exaggerated response to stimuli; excessive shyness; insomnia; emotional
instability; and death. Noncarcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard quotient (HQ)
approach, based on a comparison of expected contaminant intakes and  safe levels of intake,
expressed as Reference Doses (RfDs) or Reference Concentrations (RfCs).  The inhalation (RfC)
and oral (RfD) toxicity factors for elemental mercury are presented in Table 9. RfCs, which are
expressed in units of micrograms per  cubic meter (//g/m3) are converted to units of milligrams per
kilogram per day  (mg/kg-day) by using standard assumptions about normal human inhalation rate
and body weight. RfCs 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 (chronic daily intake or GDI) which are derived from the exposure
assessment (e.g., the amount of a chemical inhaled in indoor air) are compared to the RfC to
derive the HQ (i.e., the HQ equals the chronic daily intake divided by the RfC). Expressed
mathematically, the equation reads:
-------
                                            12
                                             RfC
An HQ greater than 1.0 indicates that the potential exists for noncarcinogenic health effects to
occur as a result of site-related exposures  An HQ of one or less indicates that the exposed
population is not likely to develop adverse health effects, including sensitive individuals.

An HQ of 510 was calculated for child residents exposed to mercury vapors at the Site, which
suggests a significant potential for future developmert of adverse noncancer health effects  An
HQ of 110 for adult residents and 100 for adult workers exposed to mercury vapors at the Site
also suggest significant potential for future development of adverse noncancer health effects  The
HQs calculated for all exposure pathways are presented in Table 10A

The Hazard Quotient for ingestion of mercury-contaminated soil shows a potential for future
development of adverse noncancer health effects to children living at the Site (2.1) in the event
the asphalt cap degrades, and an unlikely potential for future development of adverse noncancer
health effects to adult workers (0.08) at the Site and to children (0.09) who live adjacent to the
Site (off-site child residents).  Although the potential for adverse effects to future child residents
at the Site is marginal, there is some uncertainty in these estimates since many of EPA's soil
samples were composites of surficial soils and soils at depth. This may have resulted in an
underestimation of the potential for adverse health effects for future child residents.  As will be
discussed below, additional discrete (no more than 6 inches of soil depth in one sample) soil
sampling is warranted.

A preliminary remediation goal (PRO) for mercury vapors in building air was calculated for child
residents of the  Site to be 0.09Mg/m3, for adult residents of the Site to be 0.42^g/m3, and for adult
workers at the Site to be 0.44/zg/m3, which are levels determined by EPA to be protective of
public health. The PRO for mercury in soil at the Grand Street Site was determined  to be 23
mg/kg, which was calculated by EPA based on soil ingestion by children.  A qualitative
assessment indicates that a soil PRO of 23 mg/kg is protective of public health for both ingestion
and inhalation exposures (see Chapter 3 of the FFS for a detailed discussion of these values)

The Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment prepared by EPA corroborates with ATSDR's
determination that Site conditions pose a long-term health risk.  Relocation is warranted to
protect these individuals from future exposure.

In summary, actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this  Site, if not addre   d
by implementing the selected response action in this ROD, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
-------
                                           13

Uncertainties

The procedures and estimates used to assess risks, 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
•   lexicological data

Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the potentially uneven distribution of
chemicals in the media sampled.  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 chemicals of concern,  the period of time over which such
exposure would occur, and in the models used to estimate the concentrations of the chemicals of
concern at the point of exposure.

Uncertainties in lexicological 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 Assessment
provides upper-bound estimates of the risks to populations, and is highly unlikely to underes-
timate actual risks related to the Site.

Additional site-specific uncertainties include a potential underestimate of risk from soil exposure
due to a dilutional compositing effect, where surface and subsurface soils are mixed. Mercury
concentrations  in samples composited may not be entirely reflective of the soils with contact most
likely occurs (e.g., surficial soils). Furthermore, exposure to mercury vapor released from
mercury-contaminated soils,  albeit it minute, has not been quantitatively evaluated.
 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES

 Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) are specific goals to protect human health and the
 environment.  These objectives are based on available information and standards such as
 applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) and the calculated risk-based levels
 established in the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (see Chapter 3 of the FFS).

 Based upon available information and ARARs, RAOs for mercury in soils and air are designed, in
-------
                                            14

part, to eliminate the health threat posed by ingestion and inhalation of mercury. The following
RAOs were established for the Site:

•   minimize the immediate and future threat of release to the environment by a fire in the
    building^or by any other means;

•   ensure immediate and long-term health protection of future child residents by preventing
    inhalation of mercury vapors above the risk-based standard of 0.09/ug/m3 from the Baseline
    Risk Assessment, in the building;

•   ensure immediate and long-term health protection of future industrial/commercial workers in
    the building by preventing inhalation of mercury vapors above the risk-based standard of 0.44
         3 from the Baseline Risk Assessment, in the building;
•   ensure immediate and long-term human health protection by preventing ingestion of soils
     with average mercury concentrations above the residential risk-based standard of 23 mg/kg
     from the Baseline Risk Assessment, and

An additional objective at the Grand Street Mercury Site is to ensure that remedial actions are
undertaken with due regard for the historic and cultural resource protections that apply under
federal and State historic preservation laws and regulations.

Land Use  Considerations

EPA considers, for all remedial actions it undertakes, the planned ultimate end use of the property
being cleaned up.  In the case of the Grand Street Mercury Site, EPA has reviewed overall
planning and zoning .trends in Hoboken, has interviewed the Hoboken Business Administration
Offi  , and has conducted numerous community interviews to determine trends for ultimate end
use in Hoboken.

EPA's review revealed that Hoboken has been undergoing significant changes in the prior two
decades, changing from a primarily commercial and industrial area, to one of many single-family
and multiple-family dwellings and apartment complexes City government has permitted a number
of commercial to residential conversions in the area of the Site. The present zoning for the Site  is
R-2 Residence District (Stabilization), with a bulk variance which permits the artists to work  in
the building among other things. In addition, City government has indicated its desire to promote
this trend to residential property conversion  and development within Hoboken.

In a resolution of May 21, 1997, the Mayor and City Council of Hoboken called on EPA to
demolish or remove the building and restore the land at the Site. Additionally, comments fro
City officials throughout EPA's involvement at the Site support future residential use of the Sit

As a result, EPA believes that the most likely future use for the properties at 720-730 Grand
-------
                                           15

Street is residential. Accordingly, three of the cleanup alternatives developed for the Site are
consistent with residential future use. However, EPA also evaluated one alternative which
assumes a commercial/industrial future use.
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

CERCLA requires that each selected site remedy be protective of human health and the
environment, be cost effective, comply with other statutory laws, and utilize permanent solutions
and alternative treatment technologies and resource recovery alternatives to the maximum extent
pract:cable.  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 the hazardous substances.

The FFS report evaluated in detail, including the No Action alternative EPA is required to analyze
by CERCLA and the NCP, five remedial alternatives to address the following elements of concern
at the Site: residents; contaminated buildings; contaminated soils; and ground water.

The "Construction Time" for each alternative reflects only the estimated time  required to design
(assumed to be 12 months for Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5) and construct or implement the remedy
and does not include the time required to negotiate the performance of the remedy with the
potentially responsible party(ies), procure contracts for design and construction, or to obtain
permanent access to the Site. No Operation and Maintenance costs are calculated for
Alternatives 1 and 5, as each of these alternatives assumes no monitoring after the work is
completed.  Detailed cost analyses for the alternatives can be found in Chapter 6 of the FFS
With the exception of the No Action alternative, each alternative calls for mercury collection and
recovery wherever practicable^ and for off-site disposal of all other  non-recoverable site-generated
waste at EP A-approved facilities. Asbestos abatement may be necessary if suspected asbestos-
containing materials are found to be friable. All work in building interiors will be conducted in
such a manner as to ensure for protection of the health of cleanup workers in  the buildings  .nd to
protect the local community and environment from mercury releases during the remediation.

Each of the five alternatives is described beiow.

Alternative 1:        No Action

            Residents  No Action
             Building  No Action
                  Soil  No Action
       Ground Water  No Action

       ITEM           COST
-------
                                           16

      Building         S 0
      Maintenance
       & Relocation
      Total Cost        $ 0
      Time-to
      Implement        0 Months

CERCLA and the NCP require that the "No Action" alternative be considered as a baseline for
comparison with other alternatives. The No Action alternative does not include implementation
of active remedial measures for on-site mercury contamination.  Temporary relocation of prior
residents, site security and building maintenance would cease.

This alternative would result in contaminants remaining on the Site in air and soil at
concentrations above health-based levels.  Therefore, under CERCLA, the remedial action would
have to be reviewed every five years.

Alternative 2:  Remediation of Building for Residential Use/Reoccupation by Building
               Residents/Soil Remediation

        Residents   Temporary Relocation of Residents
         Building   Remediation for Residential Use for
                   Reoccupation by Former Residents
             Soil   Sampling, Excavation, and Off-Site Disposal
   Ground Water   Sampling and Analysis

       ITEM	           COST
       Building Maintenance & Relocation           $2,300,000
       Building - ^mediation                       $4,368,000
       S oil/Ground Water                          $  13 8,000
       Interior Reconstruction                      $2,975,000
       O&M (discounted over 10 years)            +$   4l,QQQ
       Total Present Worth Cost                  = $9,822,000
       Time to Implement                          46 Months
This alternative would include the continuation of the temporary relocation program for the D '
building residents and remediation of the building for reoccupation by the prior residents
Remediation of the building would include: conducting an asbestos survey; removing all reusabl
fixtures, gutting all improvements; vacuuming bulk mercury (e.g., pools of mercury and other
sediments found in the flooring) while methodically removing all flooring layers; washing inte '
surfaces with detergents and then with sulfur solutions which react with the mercury to produ
less toxic form, heating the building interior air to promote evaporation (volatilization) of mere
-------
                                           17

adsorbed to surfaces; filtering interior air to remove mercury vapors, etching contaminated
masonry surfaces; and reconstructing the building's interior to their present conditions. On-site
sewers, floor drains, sumps, and sump pits would be cleaned prior to their removal (if necessary),
and wastes generated would be collected and containerized on-site. All waste/debris generated
would be characterized and disposed of off-site at EPA-approved facilities. Mercury and other
scrap would-be recovered and recycled wherever practical.

Clearance monitoring of the interior air would be performed  monthly for one year after
remediation to ensure mercury levels remain below the remedial action objective of 0 09 /ug/m3 of
mercury in air in the building. Interior air in the buildings would be monitored annually for
mercury vapors for 10 years following successful completion of remediation to ensure that
mercury vapor levels remain below EPA risk-based concentrations. Should mercury vapors
exceed EPA levels, EPA would consider the remedy to have failed, and subsequently would have
to evacuate the building and consider relocation options for the affected parties.

Additional discrete sampling of off-site soil as well as soil under the asphalt parking lot and under
the building foundation would be conducted.  Soil with average mercury concentrations (at the
same depth interval) above 23 mg/kg under the parking lot would be excavated and disposed of
off-site at EPA-approved facilities. The excavated areas would be backfilled with clean soil
Groundwater samples would be collected  and analyzed to determine the extent to which mercury
contamination in soil at the Site has impacted groundwater quality.  Identification of groundwater
and/or off-site soil contamination may warrant further study by EPA.

If sampling under the foundation indicates that mercury contamination remains under the building
in soil or ground water, institutional controls would be put in place on the property to prevent
breaching of the foundation and contact with the contamination. The estimated time to implement
the remedy includes: 12 months for design of the remedy; 16 months for building remediation,  soil
sampling and remediation, and groundwater sampling; 6 months for interior reconstruction of the
building; and, 12 months of clearance monitoring. If mercury remains under th  foundation at
concentrations above health-based levels,  under CERCLA, the remedial action would have to be
reviewed every five years.

Alternative 3:   Remediation of Building for Residential Use/Permanent Relocation of
                Building Residents/Soil Remediation

       Residents   Permanent Relocation of Residents
        Building   Remediation for Residential Use
             Soil   Sampling, Excavation, and Off-Site Disposal
  Ground Water   Sampling and Analysis

      ITEM                                           COST
      Building Maintenance & Relocation         $ 10,853,000
      Building Remediation                         4,488,000
-------
      Soil/Ground Water                             138,000
      O&M (discounted over 10 years)            +    41,000
      Real Estate Value                             2,423.000
      Total Present Worth Cost                 = $ 13,097,000
      Time-to Implement  -                         40 Months

This alternative would include relocation of the prior building residents into permanent housing.
Temporary relocation benefits would continue until permanent relocation is achieved. Permanent
relocation would consist of the provision of relocation benefits to owners and residents of the
Site, including: compensation for the property to be acquired, moving and related expends,
replacement housing assistance; and relocation advisory services.

The remediation and clearance monitoring of the building for residential use by new residents
would be performed as described in Alternative 2, except the building would only be
reconstructed to bare interior walls and finished floors. On-site sewers, floor drains, sumps, and
sump pits would be cleaned prior to their removal (if necessary), and wastes generated would be
collected and containerized on-site.  All waste/debris generated would be characterized and
disposed of off-site at EPA-approved facilities. Mercury and other scrap would be recovered and
recycled wherever practical. Interior air in the buildings would be monitored annually for mercury
vapors for 10 years following successful completion of remediation to ensure that mercury vapor
levels remain below EPA risk-based concentrations.  Should mercury vapors exceed EPA levels,
EPA would consider the remedy to have failed, and subsequently would have to evacuate the
building and consider relocation options for the affected parties.

Additional discrete sampling of off-site soil as well as of soil under the asphalt parking lot and
under the building foundation would be conducted. Soil with average mercury concentrations (at
the same depth interval) ab -'e 23 mg/kg under the parking lot would be excavated and disposed
of off-site at EPA-approveu facilities.  The excavated areas would be backfilled with clean soil.
Groundwater samples would be collected and analyzed to determine the extent to which mercury
contamination in soil at the Site has impacted groundwater quality.  Identification of ground water
and/or off-site soil contamination may warrant further study by EPA.  If sampling under the
foundation indicates that mercury contamination remains  under the building, institutional controls
would be put in place on the property to prevent breaching of the foundation and contact with the
contamination.

If mercury remains under the foundation at concentrations above health-based levels, under
CERCLA, the remedial action would have to be reviewed every five years.  The estimated time to
implement the remedy includes:  12 months for design of the remedy; 16 months for building
remediation, soil sampling and remediation, and groundwater sampling; and, 12 months of
clearance  monitoring.  If EPA conducts the property acquisition and permanent relocation, after
successful implementation of the remedy, the property would be sold and monies generated by the
sale would offset those incurred to undertake the remedy.
-------
                                           19
Alternative 4:  Remediation of Building for Industrial or Commercial Use/Permanent
               Relocation of Building Residents/Soil Sampling

        Residents  Permanent Relocation of Residents
         Building  Remediation for Industrial or Commercial Use
             Soil  Sampling (off-site and beneath the foundation)
   Ground Water  Sampling and Analysis

       ITEM	COST
       Building Maintenance & Relocation          $ 10,853,000
       Building Remediation                        3,742,000
       Soil/Ground Water                              6,000
       O&M (discounted over 10 years)          +$     14,000
       Real Estate Value                       - $ 1,808,000
       Total Present Worth Cost                 = $ 12,807,000
       Time to Implement                          38 Months

This alternative would include temporary and permanent relocation of the prior building residents
as described above for Alternative 3. While the remediation would include the same steps as
outlined in Alternative 2, the remedial action objective would be 0.44 //g/m3 of mercury in air in
the building, which is appropriate for industrial or commercial uses.  This remedial action would
include removal of the flooring, vacuuming all elemental mercury a- * dust encountered between
each layer, and washing of the masonry and wooden structural supports with sulfur solutions
which react with the mercury to produce a less toxic, less volatile form.  On-site sewers, floor
drains, sumps, and •ornip pits would be cleaned prior to their removal (if necessary), and wastes
generated would be collected and containerized on-site. All waste/debris generated would be
characterized and disposed of off-site at EP A-approved facilities. Mercury and other scrap would
be recovered and recycled wherever practical. The building would be reconstructed to bare
interior walls and finished floors.  Interior air in the buildings would be  monitored biennially for
mercury vapors for 10 years following successful completion of remediation to ensure that
mercury vapor levels remain below EPA risk-based concentrations.  Should mercury vapors
exceed EPA levels, EPA would consider the remedy to have failed, and subsequently would have
to evacuate the building and consider relocation options for the affected parties

Additional discrete sampling of off-site soil as well as of soil under the building foundation would
be conducted. Groundwater samples would be collected and analyzed to determine the extent to
which mercury contamination in soil at the Site has impacted groundwater quality.  Identification
-------
                                          2C

of groundwater and/or off-site soil contamination may warrant farther study by EPA.  If sampling
under the foundation indicates that mercury contamination remains under the building,
institutional controls would be put in place on the property to prevent breaching of the
foundation. Institutional controls would also be placed on the property to ensure  that the existing
asphalt cap is not breached due to the underlying mercury contamination.

Because mercury concentrations in the soil in the parking lot will remain in place above health-
based levels, and if mercury remains under the foundation at concentrations above health-based
levels, under CERCLA, the remedial action will have to be reviewed every five years.  The
estimated time to implement the remedy includes: 12 months for design of the remedy; 14 months
for building remediation, soil sampling and remediation, and groundwater sampling, and, 12
months of clearance monitoring. If EPA conducts the property acquisition and permanent
relocation, after successful implementation of the remedy, the property would be sold and monies
generated by the sale would offset those incurred to undertake the remedy

Alternative 5:  Demolition of Building/Permanent Relocation of Building Residents/Soil
               Remediation

        Residents  Permanent Relocation of Residents
         Building  Demolition of Building
             Soil  Sampling, Excavation, and Off-Site  Disposal
   Ground Water  Sampling and Analysis

       ITEM                                          COST
       Building Maintenance & Relocation         $ 10,853,000
       Building Demolition                          4,359,000
       Soil/Ground Water                        +$   219,000
       Real Estate Value                         -$ 1,568,000
       Total Present Worth Cost                  =$13,863,000
       Time to Implement	.	23 Months

This alternative would include temporary and permanent relocation of the prior building residents
as described above for Alternative 3.  The building and townhouse would be demolished and
debris would be disposed of at EPA-approved facilities. Due to the high concentrations of
mercury in the flooring, the flooring would be carefully removed and disposed of off-site prior to
the demolition,  as described in Alternative 2. On-site sewers, floor drains, sumps, and sump pits
would be cleaned prior to their removal (if necessary), and wastes generated would be collected
and containerized on-site. All waste/debris generated would be characterized and disposed  of
off-site at EPA-approved facilities. Mercury and other scrap would be recovered and recycled
wherever practical.  Based upon an evaluation, the foundation of the building would be removed

Additional discrete'sampling of off-site soil as well as of soil under the asphalt parking lot and
-------
                                           21

under the building foundation would be conducted.  Soil with average mercury concentrations (at
the same depth interval) above 23 mg/kg under the parking lot and foundation would be
excavated and disposed of off-site at EPA-approved facilities.  The excavated areas would be
backfilled with clean soil.  Groundwater samples would be collected  and analyzed to determine
the extent to_which mercury contamination in soil at the Site has impacted groundwater quality.
Identification~6f groundwater and/or off-site soil contamination may warrant further study by
EPA. The estimated time to implement the remedy includes: 12 months for design of the remedy
and 11 months for building demolition, soil sampling and remediation, and groundwater sampling
If EPA conducts the property acquisition and permanent relocation,  after successful
implementation of the remedy, the property would be sold and monies generated by the sale
would offset those incurred to undertake the remedy.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives, each alternative is assessed against nine
evaluation criteria, including, overall protection of human health and the environment; compliance
with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs); long-term effectiveness and
permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment; short-term
effectiveness; implementability; cost; and state and community acceptance.

The nine evaluation criteria are described below:

 o   Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether or not a remedy
     provides adequate protection and describes how risks posed through each pathway are
     eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional
     controls. This is the primary requirement that all CERCLA remedial actions must meet

 o   Compliance with applicable or relevant and approp  ite requirements (ARARs) addresses
     whether or not a remedy will meet all of the applicable or relevant and appropriate
     requirements of other federal  and state environmental statutes and requirements or provide
     grounds for invoking a waiver.  This also is a statutory requirement under CERCLA for all
     remedial actions.

  o  Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable
     protection of human health and the environment over time, once cleanup goals have been
     met.

 o   Reduction of toxicitv. mobility, or volume through treatment is the anticipated performance
     of the treatment technologies a remedy may employ.

 o   Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve protection from any
     adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed during the
    construction and implementation period until cleanup goals are achieved.
-------
                                           22
 o  Implementability is the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the
    availability of materials and services needed to implement a particular option

 o  Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs, and net present worth
    costs.' ~^

 o  State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the RJ/FS reports and Proposed
    Plan, the state concurs, opposes, or has no comment on the preferred alternative.

 o  Community acceptance is assessed in the Record of Decision following a review of the public
    comments received on the Proposed Plan.

The following section provides a comparative analysis which evaluates the relative performance of
all alternatives in relation to each evaluation criterion noted above. This comparative analysis
identifies advantages and disadvantages of each alternative so that trade-offs between the
alternatives can be determined.

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

An air-dispersion model was used by EPA immediately after determining the extent of mercury
contamination at the Site which showed that under a "worst-case" scenario, a fire in the building
could result in high levels of mercury being released into the atmosphere.  Therefore, in the
short-term, in order to minimize the potential risk of a fire at the Site and exposure to airborne
mercury, EPA has improved the sprinkler system and  connected the building's electronic fire
alarm directly to a central fire Ration. The electronic  fire alarm is tested frequently.  While these
actions minimize the potentiateelease of mercury by minimizing the risk of fire, they do not
preclude the possibility of fire and, therefore, are not fully protective of human health and the
environment. EPA is also concerned that personal jssessions of the dissociated residents might
have been contaminated, and that the removal of these items might have contaminated areas off-
site.  EPA therefore instituted measures to monitor material removed from the building to ensure
that mercury contamination spread is minimized

Mercury contamination at the Site continues to pose a potential risk to the health of human
building residents through two primary pathways in addition to the fire scenario: inhalation of
mercury  in air in the existing building and ingestion of mercury-contaminated soil. EPA requires
that each cleanup alternative eliminate, reduce, or control the risks posed by these two pathways

Alternative 1, No Action, would not be protective of human health and the environment because
the building would remain in its current condition. Risks of exposure to mercury
vapors due to fire  or inhalation of interior air would remain.  Reoccupation of the building would
once again threaten the health of building residents by exposure to mercury vapors in air at
concentrations above risk-based levels, which is  unacceptable. Alternative  1, No Action  has b
-------
                                           23

eliminated from consideration and will not be discussed further because it is not protective of
human health and the environment.

While the building is being cleaned up, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would eliminate the risk to former
residents by Dissociating them from the Site (temporarily in the case of Alternative 2 and
permanently m the cases of Alternatives 3 and 4), thus eliminating the inhalation pathway  After
building remediation is complete, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4,  provided they are successfully
implemented (see discussion of long-term effectiveness below), would reduce the risks from
exposure to mercury in the air in the building. However, there is considerable uncertainty
whether these alternatives can meet this criterion over the  long term. After soil excavation is
complete, Alternatives 2, and 3 would reduce the future risk associated with children potentially
ingesting mercury-contaminated soil in the parking lot area.  For Alternative 4 the future risk to
on-site workers would be restricted by the continuation of the deed restriction, which is currently
in place for petroleum hydrocarbon soils. However, this deed restriction would need to be
modified for the mercury contamination. Any risks due to contamination remaining under the
foundation would be restricted by institutional controls.

Because Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would each expose workers to mercury vapors, continuous air
monitoring would be performed to ensure that all work occurred in a safe environment. Should
mercury vapor levels exceed health-based standards, measures would be taken to reduce the levels
and/or provide protective equipment to  the workers.  Additionally, because all waste/debris and
contaminated soils generated under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would be disposed of at
EPA-approved facilities, future contact with that material  would be controlled.

Alternative 5 meets this criterion since it would eliminate the risk to former residents by
dissociating them from the Site permanently, thus  eliminating the inhalation pathway and would
eliminate all future risks since^demolition would eliminate  the air exposure pathway and the risk of
fire and release to the surrounding community. After soil  excavation is complete, Alternative 5
would substantially reduce the future risk a  ociated with  ingesting mercury-contaminated soil at
the Site.

Compliance with ARARs

Actions taken at any Superfund site must meet all applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements of federal and state law or provide grounds for invoking a waiver of these
requirements. Alternatives 2,3,4,  and  5 would comply with ARARs.  The major ARARs
included in Table 11 and are briefly described below.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is a federal law that mandates procedures
for treating, transporting, storing, and disposing of hazardous  substances.  All portions of RCRA
which are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the proposed remedy for the Site would be
met by the alternatives.  Construction debris would be generated at the Site during building
remediation or demolition and all or part of that construction debris may be a hazardous waste as
-------
                                           24

defined by RCRA.  As a hazardous waste, construction debris may be subject to the Land
Disposal Restrictions under RCRA. Wastes generated would be characterized (if applicable) and
disposed of in EPA-approved facilities.

The Clean Air. Act is a federal law which sets national standards and regulations for controlling air
pollution. 'Removal of interior components of the building may release liquid elemental mercury,
which may, in turn, volatilize and constitute a point-source emission under the Clean Air Act.
The Clean Air Act also includes standards for building demolition and renovation, which require
the removal of all friable asbestos prior to  demolition.  All of the alternatives would be designed
to comply with the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

The Site history gives an indication that the Site may have some historic significance.  In
compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, a Stage LA Cultural Resources Survey
would be conducted.

Additionally, though not an ARAR because it is not an environmental law, the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, which provides
regulations and guidance for the federal government in conducting relocation activities where
property is acquired, would have bearing on Alternatives 3, 4, and 5, which involve permanent
relocation. The Act provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons displaced from their
homes by federal programs.

Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

This criterion reflects the ability of each alternative to meet remedial action objectives in the
future and also reflects the degree of certainty that the alternative will prove successful.  The
analysis of how each alternative meets this criterion is especially critical for the Grand Street
Mercury Site since four of the five alternatives evaluated would "esult in preservation of the
building structure, meaning that future occupants could be expend to residual contamination

Alternative 5, s:nce it includes demolition  and off-site disposal of the building and removal of
contaminated soil, provides the highest degree of certainty that the remediation will be successful
The risks to future residents or workers being exposed to any residual mercury contamination in
the building and  soil would be substantially reduced since all mercury contamination above
health-based levels would be removed.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide a much lower degree of certainty that the alternative will
prove successful after implementation as it is unknown whether  residual mercury contamination in
the building structure could result in levels above the cleanup objective of 0.09 pig/m3 This
means that Alternative 2 could result in former residents remaining in temporary relocation for UD
to four years with no assurance that the building would be inhabitable at the end of that time
Further, mercury contamination,  though presumed to be primarily concentrated in floorine
materials, has been detected in all areas and building components of the Site, including floorine
-------
                                            25

brick, wooden support materials, roofing materials, interior soil/sediments and in exterior on- and
off-site soils. Since mercury has adhered to minute pore spaces throughout the building structure,
there would always be the potential for exposure.  Therefore, even if the cleanup objective of 0.09
^g/m3 were met at the end of the building remediation phase, it would be impossible to ensure
without long-term monitoring that there  would be no future unacceptable risk associated with
residual contamination in the building structure. Additionally, such monitoring would not be
practical in a residential building.

Alternative 4 would provide a higher degree of certainty that  the alternative will prove successful
after implementation since the industrial/commercial cleanup standard is 0.44 /a.g/m*  As with
Alternatives 2 and 3, it would be impossible to ensure without monitoring that there would be no
future unacceptable risk associated with  residual contamination in the building structure.

For all of the alternatives, mercury would be recovered and recycled to the extent practicable
from all waste streams thereby minimizing the amounc of waste and contamination landfilled, and
all remaining waste would be characterized and shipped off-site using appropriately licensed
transporters for treatment or disposal at  an appropriately permitted landfill(s).

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume through Treatment

With the exception of Alternative 1, all of the alternatives would meet this criterion to varying
degrees. The remediation alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) would be most effective at
capturing the mercury contamination in the building. This would be done by: vacuuming bulk
mercury (e.g., pools of mercury and other sediments found in the flooring) while methodically
removing all flooring layers; and, filtering interior air to remove mercury vapors. Mercury would
be recovered and recycled wherever practical.

The demolition alternative (Alternative 5) would include less treatment than Alternatives 2, 3, and
4 because it would not include t  iting the building and filtering interior air but would capture and
recover bulk mercury in the building, thereby minimizing the toxicity, mobility,  and volume of
mercury contamination at the Site.

All of the alternatives would include recovery of mercury, treatment of applicable waste streams,
and disposal of wastes at appropriately permitted off-site facilities to ensure overall reduction of
toxicity.
 Short-Term Effectiveness

 With the exception of Alternative 1, all of the alternatives provide a high degree of short-term
 effectiveness for the prior residents of the Site since each alternative includes
 temporary/permanent relocation to immediately dissociate residents from contamination at the
-------
                                            26

Site. The time to demolish the building once design is complete and access is obtained under
Alternative 5 is estimated to be 11 months. The time to remediate the building once design is
complete and access is obtained for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 is estimated to be 14 to 16 months,
though each of these alternatives would also require at least 12 months of clearance monitoring so
that the time to actual reuse of the property is significantly greater than the time it would take to
demolish the building.

However, Alternative 5 would likely present a much greater potential short-term impact to the
surrounding community than Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.  The primary potential health and
cross-media impacts associated with Alternative 5 are increased mercury vapor, dust, and noise
generation during building demolition. These will be minimized through the use of measures
which would be undertaken to ensure that all activities are performed in such a way that vapors,
dust, debris, and other materials are not released to the surrounding community.  For instance,
careful attention will be paid to ensure that workers are fully protected from mercury exposure
during the remedial or demolition effort, and that the building is secured and work space
maintained under negative pressure to ensure minimization of off-site releases.

EPA recognizes that a significant increase in noise levels due to remediation, demolition, and/or
transportation activities may occur under Alternatives 2,3, 4 and 5.  EPA will take precautionary
measures to minimize noise levels due to  construction activities to the extent practicable, and will
design transportation flow patterns to minimize traffic impacts on residential areas.  EPA will
work with and provide advance notice of remedial activities to the local community.

Implementability

Implementability addresses an analysis of the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy
and the availability of services and materials needed to implement a particular alternative.
Alternative 5 affords the highest degree of implementability in that it is tecbrucally feasible and
would require a minimal amount of administrative coordination to complete.  Demolition and
excavation services are widely available although considerations for worker safety and
maintenance of work space under negative pressure would likely narrow the list of potential
contractors.  Administratively, Alternative 5 would involve consideration of the National Historic
Preservation Act which may require some recordation of the building prior to demolition.

Since Alternative 5 would include demolition of the townhouse, careful attention would have to
be paid to ensuring the structural integrity of the adjacent property at 718 Grand Street, as the
townhouse is physically adjoined to the adjacent property.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 each raise implementability concerns due to uncertainties associated with
technical feasibility as well as securing contractors capable of implementing the required remedial
technologies.  Based on EPA's review of the literature, remediation to the remedial action
objectives specified in this document has not been recorded in the past.  Further, in the case of
Alternatives 2 and 3, the remedial action objective of 0 09 Mg/m3 is very close to the detection
-------
                                           27

limit (0.05 jug/m3) for the EPA-approved analytical method, potentially adding some uncertainty
to the interpretation of analytical results. Additionally, the prior residents have expressed to EPA
that they may be unwilling to move back into the building, even after remediation is successfully
completed. Finally, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would require close coordination with several
entities, including  ATSDR, the Hoboken Health Department, the Hudson Regional Health
CommissidnTand the New Jersey Department of Health, in order to get their concurrence on
reuse of the building after the conclusion of the remedial effort.

The implementability of Alternative 4 is also problematic in that the City of Hoboken has
presently zoned the Site as R-2 Residence District (Stabilization), multifamily residential, with a
bulk variance which permit artists to work in the building among other things.  In addition, City
government has indicated its desire to promote residential property conversion ana development
within Hoboken, and has voiced objections to a return of the property to  commercial/industrial
zoning.

Cost

The cost estimates associated with the alternatives are summarized in Table 3.  Alternative 2 is the
lowest-cost, protective alternative with a present worth cost of $9.8 million. The next three
alternatives are more expensive with present worth costs of $13.1  million for Alternative 3, $128
million for Alternative 4, and $13.9 million for Alternative 5. Permanent relocation costs, near
$10 million, account for the majority of the costs for Alternatives 3, 4, and 5.

State Acceptance

EPA has developed this remedial action approach in consultation with NJDEP, which concurs
with the selected remedy presented in this Record of Decision. NJDEP concurrence
correspondence may be found at Attachment 2.

Community Acceptance

Community acceptance of the preferred remedy was evaluated after the public comment period
Local officials, members of the surrounding community, and the former residents expressed
support for the preferred remedy.  A more detailed discussion of community comments is
presented in the Responsiveness Summary at Attachment 3.
 SELECTED REMEDY

 After a thorough review and evaluation of the alternatives and public comments, EPA and NJDEP
 have determined that Alternative 5 achieves the best balance of tradeoffs with respect to the nine
 criteria.  The major components of the selected remedy include: Permanent Relocation of the
-------
                                           2S

Building Residents;  Demolition of the Building; Soil Sampling, Excavation, and Off-Site
Disposal, and Groundwater Sampling and Analysis.

Specifically, the selected remedy will involve permanent relocation of the prior building residents
Temporary relocation benefits will continue until permanent relocation is achieved  Permanent
relocation wUr consist of the provision of relocation benefits to owners and residents of the Site,
including: compensation for the property to be acquired; moving and related expenses,
replacement housing assistance; and relocation advisory services.

The building and townhouse will be demolished and debris will be disposed of off-site at EPA-
rpproved facilities. Due to the high concentration of mercury in the flooring, the flooring will be
methodically removed, as described in Alternative 2, and segregated. On-site sewers, floor drains,
sumps, and sump pits will be assessed and cleaned as necessary to remove bulk mercury
contamination prior to their removal, and wastes generated will be collected and containerized
on-site. All waste/debris generated will be characterized and disposed of off-site at
EPA-approved facilities. Mercury and  other scrap will be recovered and recycled wherever
practical.  Based upon an evaluation, the foundation will be removed.

Additional discrete sampling of soil under the asphalt parking lot and under the building
foundation will be conducted. Soil with average mercury concentrations (at the  same depth
interval)  above 23 mg/kg under the parking lot and foundation will be excavated and disposed of
off-site at EPA-approved facilities. The excavated areas will be backfilled with clean soil to the
present level of the parking lot and adjacent sidewalks. If EPA conducts the property acquisition
and permanent relocation,  after successful implementation of the remedy, the property will  be sold
and monies generated by the sale will offset those incurred to undertake  the remedy. It is
estimated that six soil samples will be collected from under the parking lot and foundation which
will be analyzed for all Superfund Target Compounds (organics) and Superfund  Target Analytes
(metals) and for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons.

A minimum of two groundwater samples will be collected and  analyzed to determine the extent to
which mercury contamination in soil a* the Site has impacted groundwater quality.  Identification
of groundwater and/or off-site soil contamination may warrant further study by EPA.  A well
search may also be conducted to determine groundwater quality in the surrounding area with
respect to mercury.

The selected remedy will be protective of human health and the environment because mercury
contamination in the buildings will be permanently eliminated by a demolition effort. Demolition
will eliminate any uncertainties posed by the remediation alternatives regarding exposure to
residual contamination in pore spaces of the building structure.

The selected remedy will achieve ARARs at a comparable cost to the other options involving
permanent relocation.  The selected remedy will enable EPA to move the former building
residents into permanent housing in the shortest time possible.  In addition,  the selected remedy
-------
                                           29

will allow for future residential use of the property, consistent with current and projected future
land use patterns in Hoboken.  Therefore, the selected remedy will provide the best balance of
trade-offs among alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria. EPA believes that 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, is
cost-effective/and utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent possible.
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. The remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment or
resource recovery 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.

A brief, site-specific description of how the selected remedy complies with the statutory
requirements is presented below.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

The selected remedy addresses the remedial action objectives by reducing the risks of future
human exposure to mercury contamination at the Site. The selected remedy will be highly
effective at eliminating the risks posed to individuals previously occupying the Site while in
temporary relocation. Occupants will continue to be protected from the risk of exposure to
mercury  ipors while in temporary relocation, which will continue until permanent relocation is
completed. Risks to persons at the Site and the local community from exposure to mercury
contamination in the buildings and release of mercury vapors due to fire will be effectively
eliminated by a demolition effort.

Site soils will be sampled and analyzed to determine the range and extent of contamination under
the parking lot and the buildings' foundations. Mercury-contaminated site soils above residential
risk-based concentrations will be excavated to ensure human health protection. Soils on
properties adjacent to the Site will be monitored for mercury to assess potential site-attributable
impacts. -Groundwater samples will be collected and analyzed to determine potential impacts of
the Site to groundwater quality, especially with respect to mercury contamination.  In the  event
that off-site soil and/or groundwater investigations reveal contamination attributable to the Site,
EPA will evaluate the need for further study and/or remedial activities.

Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
-------
                                             30

   The selected remedy will comply with all federal and State requirements that are applicable or
   relevant and appropriate (ARARs) to its implementation.  A comprehensive ARAR discussion is
   included in Chapter 4 of the FFS.

Chemical-Specific ARARs
   Compliancelvith chemical-specific ARARs will be achieved by conducting all remedial action
   activities in accordance with the regulations specified below.

   Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Requirements
     Certain RCRA regulations at Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) Sections 260 through
     268 will be applicable to the Grand Street Site if demolition debris or excavated soil are determined
     to be characteristic RCRA hazardous wastes. EPA review of the history of the Site has resulted in
     a determination that all building-related wastes generated during remediation activities must be
     tested in accordance with the regulations at 10 CFR § 261.24, which set specific maximum
     leachable concentrations for 39 constituents, including mercury, as  measured using the Toxicity
     Characteristic Leaching Procedure (U. S. EPA Test Method SW1311, TCLP). These regulations
     specify a TCLP maximum leachable concentration for mercury of 02 mg/1, above which the waste
     would be deemed RCRA hazardous waste.  Soil or debris from remediation or demolition activities
     that contains mercury in excess of the TCLP limit for mercury (0.2 mg/1) would be considered
     RCRA hazardous wastes and would be subjected to RCRA generator requirements at 40 CFR §
     262, and the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) at 40 CFR § 268.  Liquid mercury collected and
     reclaimed is exempt from regulation under RCRA as specified at 40 CFR § 261.2(a)(i).

   Federal Drinking Water Standards
     Under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA established regulations to protect the
     public from contaminants in drinking water, which are listed at'40 C.F.R. Part 141.  The elemental
     mercury in the buildings and mercury contaminated soils could potentially impact local
     groundwater and surface water. Although there are no current receptors locally and all properties
     in the area are served by city water, the aquifer is presently designated as a potential source of
     drinking water.  Therefore, these Federal SDWA regulations are considered relevant and
     appropriate requirements for the Grand Street Site.

   New Jersey Drinking Water Regulations (N.J.A.C. 7:10)
     Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for drinking water have been established under the New
     Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act (NJSA 58:12A-1).  The New Jersey MCLs are generally equal to,
     or more stringent than, SDWA MCLs. Therefore, these State SDWA regulations are considered
     relevant and appropriate requirements for the Grand Street Site.

Location-Specific ARARs
   Compliance with location-specific ARARs will be achieved by conducting all remedial action
   activities in accordance with the regulations specified below.

   Historic and Archaeologic Preservation
-------
                                              31

    The National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) is applicable to those properties
    included in, or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places. The buildings at 720 and 722-
    732 Grand Street were constructed in or around 1910 and therefore may be eligible for inclusion
    on the National Register of Historic Places. .The buildings are not currently registered  on either the
    state or federal level.  Because of the possibility of Site eligibility, EPA will conduct  a Stage 1A
    Cultural Resources Survey during Remedial Design.

  Protection of Flood Plains
    EPA Executive Order 11988, 40 CFR Part 6 Subpart A, and the New Jersey Flood Hazard Control
    Act (NJ.A.C. 7:13) set standards on the allowable activities for floodways to protect the
    environment and human health.  Such standards will  be followed  as ARARs for any remediation
    conducted in a flood plain, or any activity involving alterations of or encroachment upon the
    waterway.  The buildings at 720 and 722-732 Grand Street are located in a flood plain  of the
    Hudson River, so these regulations are ARARs for the Grand Street Site.

Action-Specific ARARs
  Compliance with action-specific ARARs will be achieved by conducting all remedial action activities
  in accordance with the regulations specified below.

  RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
    Land disposal restrictions (LDRs), codified at 40 CFR Part 268, prohibit certain wastes from being
    placed or disposed on the land unless they meet specified Best Demonstrated Available Technology
    (BDAT) treatment standards. Construction debris will be subject to these restrictions if TCLP
    maximum leachable mercury concentrations are above 0.2 mg/1.  Such waste may require treatment
    to ensure compliance with LDRs. Once treated, wastes can be disposed of at a RCRA Subtitle D
    (solid waste) landfill.

  RCRA - Off-Site Transportation of Hazardous Waste
    Hazardous wastes that are transported off-site must meet transportation regulations set forth in 49
    CFR Parts  100, 107, 171-178, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1801-
    1813), RCRA, and 40 CFR Parts 262 and 263.
   RCRA Generator Requirements for Manifesting and Off-Site Waste Transport
    RCRA regulations (40 CFR Part 262) require that the generator, for each shipment of waste off-
    site, prepare a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest to accompany appropriately labeled and marked
    containers of hazardous waste, which must accompany the shipment of waste through transport to
    the location at which the waste is ultimately treated or disposed. These requirements are applicable
    to any remedial action involving off-site transport of RCRA hazardous waste.  RCRA regulations
    applicable to facilities which receive and treat, store or dispose of RCRA hazardous waste are
    presented at 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265.

   New Jersey Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Regulations
-------
    NJDEP regulations for solid and hazardous waste management (N.J.A.C. 7:26) are similar to
    federal solid and hazardous waste management regulations, as NJDEP has been delegated the
    authority to operate a solid and hazardous waste management program by EPA.  If the remedial
    action involves management of hazardous wastes at the Site in the State of New Jersey, it will also
    require compliance with, at a minimum, the substantive portions of these regulations.

  The Clean Air Act (CAA)
    The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) 40 CFR Part 61
    Subpart  M, include standards for asbestos abatement and building demolition and renovation which
    will be applicable to remedial activity at the Grand  Street Site.

  New Jersey Requirements  for Asbestos Remediation
    NJDEP  requirements for site remediation (N.J.A.C. 7:26E-3.5) of building interiors require that
    asbestos surveys be conducted to assess the presence and extent of asbestos containing material
    (ACM).  These requirements are applicable to remedial activities performed within the buildings at
    the Grand  Street Site  Additionally, New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) requirements
    (N.J A.C 8:60) deal with asbestos licenses and permits.  EPA will need only to secure a permit
    equivalent for remedial activity at the Site.

  New Jersey Air Emission Requirements for Mercury Remediation
    Remediation or demolition of the buildings will require ventilation and the control of mercury
    vapors by a pollution control system. The NJDEP Bureau of Air Quality Engineering will require
    permit equivalents for air emissions during the remediation or demolition activities.

To-Be-Considered Material (TBCs)
  The following requirements  will be considered by EPA during design and implementation of the
  Remedy, and will be complied with to the extent practicable.

  NJDEP Technical Requirements for Site Remediation
    These requirements, codified at N.J.A.C. 7:26E-1 et. al., specify technical standards to be followed
    at all sites undergoing remediation which will be considered orior to remedial activities at the Site

  Hudson County Regional Health Commission Air Pollution Control Code
    The Hudson Regional Health Commission (HRHC) Air Pollution Control Code (Section 6 3)
    regulates fugitive emissions from construction sites and demolition activities and will be considered
    for remedial actions at the Site.

  New Jersey Guidance Document for the Remediation of Contaminated Soils
    NJDEP  has developed soil cleanup criteria for the cleanup of mercury at hazardous waste sites
    which are  14 mg/kg for residential direct contact and 270 mg/kg for non-residential direct contact
    This document will be considered for all soil remediation activities conducted at the Site.

  New Jersey Lead Hazard Evaluation and Abatement Code
-------
                                            33

  The New Jersey Lead Hazard Evaluation and Abatement Code (N.J.A.C. 5:17) which took effect
  on January 1,  1996, is a requirement which will be considered prior to remedial activities at the
  Site.

Local Regulations
  The City of Hoboken, New Jersey, and Hudson County, New Jersey, may have regulations for the
  abatement of lead-based paint hazards and for the demolition (or renovation) of buildings with
  asbestos containing materials.

NIOSH and ACGffl Guidelines
  The NIOSH recommended exposure limit (PEL) for mercury vapor is 0.05 mg/m3 on a Time
  Weighted Average (TWA) occupational exposure level for a 10-hour workday and a 40-hour work
  week. The ACGJH Threshold Limit Value (TLV) is 0 025 mg/m3 on a TWA occupational
  exposure level for an 8-hour work day and a 40-hour work week.

  The New Jersey Department of Health guidance for mercury entitled, "Controlling Metallic
  Exposure in The Workplace" recommends that in the workplace, the area of a mercury spill should
  be cleaned so that the level of mercury present in the air is well below the 8-hour exposure limit of
  0.025 milligram per cubic meter (mg/m3) recommended by ACGIH.

Other Pertinent Requirements
The following requirements, while not environmental laws, will be complied with because they are
related to the selected remedy.

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
  The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 provides
  regulations and guidance for agency conductance of relocation activities. These standards apply
  only to federal or federally-assisted relocation programs. Requirements of the Act are provided at
  42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.. and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR 4.1 et seq. This act provides
  for uniform and equitable treatment of persons displaced from their homes, businesses, or farms by
  Federal and federally-assisted programs, and to establish uniform and equitable land acquisition
  policies for Federal and federally-assisted programs.

Public Buildings, Property, and Works
  Section 255 of Title 40 ("Public Buildings, Property, and Works") provides that public money may
  not be expended for the purchase of land unless the Attorney General gives prior written approval
  of the sufficiency of the title to the land for the purpose for which the property is being acquired.
  This requirement is only applicable if EPA must acquire real property to conduct the permanent
  relocation.

Public Contracts
  Section 14 of Title 41 ("Public Contracts") provides that "[n]o land shall be purchased on account
  of the United States, except under a law authorizing such purchase."  Section  104(j) of CERCLA
-------
                                            34

  authorizes the President to acquire real property when the President determines that the property is
  needed to conduct a remedial action.  This requirement is only applicable if EPA must acquire real
  property to conduct the permanent relocation.

Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
  Occupational Safety and Health Standards for Hazardous Response and General Construction
  Activities (29 CFR Parts 1904, 1910,  1926) are intended to protect workers from harm related to
  occupational exposure to chemical contaminants (mercury), physical hazards, heat or cold stresses,
  noise, etc. The asbestos standard under the Occupational Safety and Health  Act (OSHA) is
  contained in 29 CFR Section 1926.58. The standard for Lead Exposure in Construction
  (contained in 29 CFR 1926.62) w^ll be applicable for any construction activities at the Site for
  surfaces containing lead paint.  Although referenced in this discussion, OSHA is considered by
  EPA to be a "non-environmental law" whose standards and requirements apply of their own force,
  not as a result of the CERCLA ARAR system (55 FR 8680; March 8, 1990). For this reason,
  remediation activities (including removal of building materials and/or building demolition) at the
  Grand Street Site will be subject to the requirements of OSHA.

New Jersey Uniform Construction Code
  The New Jersey Uniform Construction Code (NJUCC) sets standards for all new construction and
  renovations and is cited at N.J.A.C. 5:23.  Although this is  not an environmental law, these
  standards are applicable to renovation or new construction activities at the Site.

City of Hoboken Building Code
  Under municipal code 33-5, the Hoboken Health Department must inspect all buildings prior to
  any demolition or renovation work to determine if a rodent infestation exists. After Health
  Department approval, the Hoboken Building Department is then notified and is responsible
  ensuring that all renovationstomply with the NJUCC (N.J.A.C. 5:23).  The  Building Department
  is responsible for approving the appropriate permits for any renovation or demolition.
Cost-Effectiveness

The cost effectiveness of a remedy is determined by weighing the cost against the ability to achieve
ARARs and remedial action objectives. While all of the remedial alternatives evaluated by EPA,
with the exception of Alternative 1 - No Action, offer overall protection to human health and the
environment and achieve ARARs, they do so to varying degrees in terms of cost-effectiveness   The
differences, including balances and trade-offs, are discussed below:

Alternative 2 is the least expensive of the four protective alternatives at $9,821,000.  While
theoretically possible to implement, this remedial alternative does not provide assurances that it will
be effective over the long term. Complications with achieving extremely low remedial action goals
might necessitate revisiting the remedy and selection of a different remedy for the Site (including
additional relocation), at increased cost. Additionally, complications with achieving remedial action
-------
                                              35

goals could delay remedy completion, which would increase costs for remediation and temporary
relocation activities.

Alternative 3 has a present worth cost of $13,096,000.  This alternative presents many of the same
concerns as Alternative 2. For instance, complications with achieving extremely low remedial action
goals might necessitate revisiting the remedy and selection of a different remedy for the Site
(including additional relocation), at increased cost.

Alternative 4 has a present worth cost of $12,807,000.  This alternative presents all of the same
concerns as Alternative 2, through to a lesser degree, as the remedial action goals are higher, and
therefore more easily achievable. I-respective of cost, however are land use considerations, which
preclude industrial/commercial remediation of the buildings in light of present zoning and population
trends in the City of Hoboken.

Alternative 5 has the highest present worth cost of the four alternatives at $13,861,000. Although
highest in cost, it is not significantly higher than Alternatives 3 or 4. However, this alternative
presents none of the uncertainties inherent in Alternatives 2, 3 or 4, and unequivocally ensures that
remedial action goals will be achieved.

EPA has therefore determined the selected remedy to be cost-effective because it provides the
greatest overall long-term and short-term effectiveness in proportion to its present worth cost. A
breakdown of costs for the selected remedy is provided at Table 12.
 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment (or Resource Recovery)
 Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
                            V*
 Amongst the criteria which EPA must assess in the selection of CERCLA remedies, EPA believes the
 selected remedy to provide the best balance of tradeoffs. Because of land use considerations, EPA
 believes that remediation of the building to industrial standards (Alternative 4), while potentially
 technically feasible, cannot be implemented at the Site.  Residential remediation (Alternatives 2 and 3)
 and reuse of the buildings may be technically possible but would require long-term monitoring to
 ensure that protectiveness is maintained for the future residents. While such monitoring is also
 technically feasible, it would not prevent a potential worst-case scenario in which families re-occupy
 the building, only to be exposed to mercury at some point in the future.  Input received during the
 public comment period indicates that the community would not support reuse of the buildings at the
 Site.  Thus, remediation and residential reoccupation of the buildings (Alternatives 2 and 3) are not
 likely implementable because they are potentially ineffective over the long-term and would not  be
 acceptable to the community.  Industrial/commercial remediation of the buildings (Alternative 4) is
 also likely not implementable due to concerns at it may be potentially ineffective (though to a lesser
 extent than Alternatives 2 and 3), but possesses unique implementability concerns in that it does not
 conform to likely future use of the Site.  Therefore, demolition of the buildings (Alternative 5) is the
 only protective and practicable remedy for the Site. The selected remedy utilizes permanent solutions
-------
                                            36

and treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable.

Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element

This remedy-satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that reduces
toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element since the principal threat at the Site, liquid
elemental mercury, will be recovered during building demolition.


DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

There are no significant changes from the preferred remedy presented in the Proposed Plan.

However, based on specific comments received during the public comment period, EPA has modified
Alternative 4 by deleting sampling and remediation of soil under the asphalt parking lot from this
Alternatives.  EPA agrees with the commenter that such sampling and remediation would not be
necessary under Alternative 4 since this alternative assumes that the future use of the Site will be
industrial.  In this case, the current deed restriction would need to be modified to reflect the mercury
contamination at the Site so that it would be unlikely that the asphalt cap would be disturbed. The
cost estimate for Alternative 4 was decreased by $ 132,000, the estimated cost for sampling and
remediation of the soils under the parking lot.  This change in Alternative 4 did not change EPA's
selected remedy for the Site.
-------
ATTACHMENT 1




Figures and Tables
-------
   Figure 1
Location Map
   Figure 2
  Street Map
-------
                             1-2
                           Figure 3
                           Site Plan
  ®
te
3 t
2^
^ 2"
*i
        4   GE & Cooper Hewitt 1
        \ \   Manufacturing Building
        h           410	.
 O)
id!
     0
     0
     00
 a;

 0!
•55   <
£!
           ro
           C7«
^^^mm
Q
I
0
c
c/>
D
                                              o,
                                              i:
                        8th  Street
                               •B"
                               "A" Units
and Dje Company
Manufactulng BfcJg..
& GSAP Residences at
722-732 Grand Street
                                              Oocrvnon

                                               I
                                                           o
                                                      co

                                             ^_ oo
                                         connected _
                                         residences ?Z
 O
CD
                                              O
                                             E
                                              0
                                                           d>
C
                         7th Street
       Shaded Areas Indicate Site
                                                     not to scale
-------
                         1 -3
                       Table 1A
Interior Air Monitoring and Air Sampling for Mercury Vapor
w^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ss
1 Sampling Location
II -
2A Bedroom
2A LvngRm/Kitchen
2B Bedroom
2B Living Room
2C Bedroom
2C Living Room
2D Living Room
2D Bedroom
3A Bedroom
3 A Living Room
3B Living Room
3B Bedroom
3C Bedroom
3C Living Room
3D Kitchen
3D Bedroom
4A Child's Bedroom
4A Living Room
4B Living Room
4B Master Bedroom
4C Child's Bedroom
4C Master Bedroom
5 A LIVID? Room
5 A Bedroom
5B Living Room
5B Master Bedroom
5C Living Room
5C Bedroom
5D Laundry Room
5D Main Area
Townhouse 1st fl
Townhouse 2nd fl
Townhouse 3rd fl
Townhouse 4th fl
Common Area 2nd fl
Common Area 3rd fl
Common Area 4th fl
Common Area 5th fl
29 January 1996
Hopcalite
46.5
38.5
78.1
83.1
3.66
2.19
3.64
2.61
19.2
16.2
15.7
12.8
4.5
3.89
1.68
1.89
20.8
22.4
19
23.7
>i5-
13.9
36.2
39.9
40.7
34.7
21.4
23.8
27.8
41.3
.59
1.3
1.31
1.02
4.08
2.56
3.37
3.37
Terome
35
39
72
82
3
3
3
3
13
15
10
13
15
6
3
3
28
28
25
14
6
22
30
10
25
25
31
32
10-17
10-17
3
3
3
3
-
7
9
10
*
30 January 1996
Hopcalite
11.1
10.8
67.7
66.8
6.37
3.53
4.58
4.45
6.73
6.46
15.9
18.3
4.87
6.14
3.86
3.53
13.5
14.6
19.9
25.1
12.5
11.5
43.3
44.7
41.4
45.8
29.7
35.6
38.9
29.7
1.25
1.17
1.96
1.33
7.67
7.11
8.09
7.34
Terome
13
22
50
53
3
8
4
4
4
2
11
11
3
3
3
4
16
11
12
15
11
12
33
24
34
35
27
27
24
14
3
3
3
3
12
9
8
13
31 January 1996 ||
Hopcalite
9.44
10.4
60.3
55.9
2.42
1.72
3.97
3.07
7.66
8.13
11.1
9.20
4.3
3.92
3.33
-
17.5
20
17.6
16.5
12.2
11.3
42.5
40.8 .
34.4
36.8
32.5
30.6
23.6
22.1
-
0.50
1.03
1.19
7.53
8.79
13.4
11.6
Terome
4
24
33
47
7
3
2
4
5
6
11
10
4
4
5
-
18
20
15
16
11
11
24
21
35
25
38
35 I
20 If
20 ||

<3 II
<3 II
<3 II
8 II
3 II
7 ||
7 II
all data in micrograms per cubic meter (/zg/mjj mercury vapor in air II
Illfl /A nr* t-\ + £ir fl r% o/%rvt r^l £» /*/-vT 1 t*s~+£is\ /*»*• in 1 1* rT a/A ||
-------
                            1 -4
                         Table IB
Interior Air Monitoring and Air Sampling for Mercury Vapor
Sampling Location
Basement North
Basement So. (A)
Basement So. (B)
2A Basement
4D Living room
4D Bedroom
6 February 1996
Hopcalite
0.17
8.79
13.8
1.91
16.0
16.1
Terome
<3
6
10
3
12
14
7 February 1996 '
Hopcalite
0.19
19.3
32.2
2.11
17.7
20.3
Terome
4
9
15
<3
18
21
8 February 1996
Hopcalite
0.24
8.81
16.0
2.30
21.7
19.1
Jerome
<3
n/a
n/a
6
17
20
   data in micrograms per cubic meter
||(n/a) denotes no data available
                          ) mercury vapor in air
                          Table 2
    Interior On-Site Soil/Sediment Sampling for Mercury
Sample ID
BSMTTH-1
BSMTTH-2
BSMT-1
BSMT-2
BSMT-3
Hg Cone
1600
2320
2540 T
354
157



Sample ID
BSMT-4
BSMT-5
BSMT-6
BSMT-7
BSMT-8
Hg Done
1220
36.4
38.1
596 I
259
all data in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) mercury
J- mercury concentration estimated
-------
                                           1 -5
                                         Table 3
                      Discrete On-Site Soil Sampling for Mercury
Sample
TT-1 "*
1 1-1
TT-7
II-?
TM
TM
TT-4
U-4
Y-1
Y-1
X-3
Depth
0-4
4-8
0-4
4-6
0-4
4-6
0-4
4-S
0-4
4-8
0-4
Hg
SO
i s
61
S.7
41
S 1
790
64
16
0.99
64

Sample
Y-1
Y-4R
Y-4R
Y-1
Y-1
Y-7
Y-7
Y-1
Y-1R
Y-4
Y-4
Depth
4-8
0-4
4-8
0-4
4-8
0-4
4-8
0-1
0-7.5
0-4
4-8
Hg
077
1?
OS
80
72
S4
74
S4
11
7 4
74
all data in milligrams per kilogram (nag/kg) mercury
                                         Table 4
                           Off-Site Soil Sampling for Mercury
Sample
AS-1
      Date
April 4, 1996
Depth
0-3"
14
          Sample
                Date
C-2
February 28,1997
                    Depth
0-3"
24.8
AS-2
April 4, 1996
0-3"
28
D-4
February 28, 1997
0-3*
6.8
AS-3
April 4, 1' '
6-12"
13
E-2
February 28,1997
0-3'
22.3
AS-4
April 4, 1996
6-12"
11
E-3
February 28, 1997
0-3"
9.7
AS-5
April 4, 1996
12-24"
28
E-0
February 28, 1997
0-3"
11.6
AS-6
April 4, 1996
12-24"
25
F-l
February 28, 1997
0-3"
13.4
AS-7
April 4, 1996
0-6"
39
F-5
February 28, 1997
0-3"
12.1
AS-8
April 4, 1996
18"
5.5
H-5
February 28,1997
0-3"
 12.2
A-2
February 28, 1997
0-3"
14.2
H-l
February 28,1997
0-3"
7.1
B-l
February 28, 1997
0-3"
15.5
Bsmt-1
February 28, 1997
0-3"
 .oou
B-3
February 28, 1997
0-3"
15
Bsmt-2
February 28,1997
 0-3"
 0.61
B-4
February 28, 1997
0-3"
30.4
all data in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) mercury
U - mercury not detected at or above value indicated
-------
                                      1  6
                                    Table 5
     December 12, 1996, Laboratory Confirmation of Samples Collected During
              X-Ray Fluorescence Investigation for Mercury in Wood	
  Sample
He
  Sample
                  Sample
5D-01
   1500
5D-05D2
       4100
        5C-01D
                    210
5D-02
5D-03
5D-04
5D-04D
5D-05
5D-05D
   6300
5D-06
        890
        5C-02
    910
5D-07
U
102
4A-100
   1600
5D-08
       1700
        4A-101
    860
5D-09
   5700
5D-10
   4300
5C-01
                    280
190
                    110
J-mercury concentration estimated
all data in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg} mercury
                         U- mercury not detected at or above value indicated
                                    Table 6
                    Data Summary for Total Mercury in Brick
1 Sample ID
4A-4H
4A-5H
4A-9H
4A-10H
4C-1H
4C-3H
4H-2H
Hg Cone (mg/kg)
39.8
155
797
729
590
186
1900
Sample ID
4H-4H
4H-6H
4H-7H
5B-5H
5B-5D
3B
3C-KIT
Hg Cone (mg/kg)
2900
9110
455
424
507
8900
869
-------
                                                                            1 -7

                                                                         Table 7A
                                            Data Summary for Mercury Detected in Air and Soil
                                                                   Grand Street Site
Exposure Scenario/
Receptors
ES- 1 • Child and Adult Reiidenti
ES-2 • Adull Worker
ES-3 - Child Resident
ES-4 - Aduli Worker
ES-5 - Child Resident
M- "<» of
Concern
Air Inside the Building
On-Site Soil Under the Parking
Lot of 722 Grand Street
OfT-Sile Soil From the Backyard
of 725 Adams Street
Number
of
Samples*
1714
35
19
Range of
Detected
Concentrations^
2.50E-05 - 9.99E-OI
2.40E+00 - 2.90E+O2
5 50E+OO - 3 90EtOI
Mean
Concentration
3.S4E-02
3.4IE+0I
I.69E+01
95% UCL
of the Mean
A 53E-02
4 99E+OI
2 I9E+OI
Units Air (mg/mJ), Soil (mg/Vg)
UCL - Upper Confidence Limit

I Number of samples evaluated. For u>il, duplicaiei at a locarion were averaged and considered as one sample.

b For toil, range of detected concentration! wu bated on the raw data prior to averaging the duplicates at a location

c Arithmetic mean was based on averaging values after averaging duplicates at a location.
-------
                                                                 1  -8

                                                              Table 7B

                                      Data Summary for Mercury Detected in Soil
                                          from the Basement of 722 Grand Street

Number of
Samples.
9
Range of
Detected
Concentrationsb
(•»/k«)
364E«OI - 2ME*03

Mean
Concentration
<•»*»)
947E»02

95% UCL
of the Mean
(»l/kO
2 GE->04
Exposure
Point
Concentration*1
<•»*»)
2 HEtOJ
UCL - Uppn Cooridrnc* Limit
i Numbti of detected wapiti enlmied Dupli«les n • locuion were «vtr«|td uid
 considered •• on< tunplc
b fUngc of delected concoitntjcmi wn tutcd on iht r«w din --"if lo ivcngmg the
 duplicalei it • locltion
c Ariihmclic mem wu bucd cm ivcnging ulutt iftn >veraging duplicnti >l • loc«Don
d 95% UCL cicccded iht miximum dtlrtlrd conceim>rion. Ibcrtfore Iht mnimum dtlccKd
 concentribon wai selected
-------
                                                         Table 8

                                         Potential Exposure Pathways/Routes
                                                    Grand Street Site
Exposure
Pathway
ES-1
Air Inside the Building
££2
Air Inside the Building
ESJ
On-Site Soil Under the
Parking
Lot of 722 Grand Street
ES^t
On-Site Soil Under the
Parking
Lot of 722 Grand Street
E&S
Off-Site Soil from the
Backyard
of 725 Adams Street
Scenario
Future Use
Future Use
Future Use
Future Use
Current Use
Receptor
**
RME - Child and adult residents
CTE -5 to 13 Year old resident
RME • Adult worker
CTE - Adult worker
RME - Child resident
CTE - Child resident
RME - Adult worker
CTE - Adult worker
RME - Child resident
CTE • Child resident
Exposure
Route
- Inhalation of air
- Inhalation of air
- Ingestion of soil
- Ingestion of soil
- Ingestion of soil
K.\IB - KiaunaHi Maiimum Btftnrt fmianin of Mfk-tmd upcturt)
CTE - Ctttnl Tnultnc) Ejpoiuri (miatun tf attntl tipatun).
-------
                                                           1 - 10

                                                          Table 9

                            Chronic Reference Doses and Toxicity Endpoints for Mercury
                                                    Grand Street Site
Chronic
Oral
Reference
Dose
<«t/k|-d.y>
JOE-O4 b


Toxicity Endpoint

Autoimmune glocncruUr ncphnbi


Reference*

IRJS
Chronic
Inhalation
Reference
Dose
<«|/fcfHliy)
I6E-03 c


Toxicity Endpoint

Neurotoxicity


Reference'

IRIS
• IRIS - Integrated Rjsk In/ornunofl Syitem (EPA, 1997).
b Vtlue ii f
-------
                                      1-11
                                    Table 10A
                     Summary of Haiard Quotients for Mercury
                                  RME Scenario
                                Grand Street Site
 ES-1
        Child Resident
        Adult Resident
5.1E+02
1.1E+02
  NA
  NA
 ES-2
        Adult Worker
 .OE+02
  NA
 ES-3
        Child Resident
  NA
2.1E+00
 ES-4
        Adult Worker
  NA
8.1E-02
 ES-5
       Child Resident
  NA
9.3E-0!
NA = Not applicable.
-------
                                       1 - 12

                                     Table 10B
                      Summary of Hazard Quotients for Mercury
                                   CTE Scenario
                                 Grand Street Site

  ES-1
    5-13 Year-old Resident
1.4E+02
  NA
        Adull Worker
6.0E+01
  NA
        Child Resident
  NA
1.06E+00
 ES-4
        Adult Worker
  NA
7.12E-02
 ES-5
        Child Resident
  NA
4.67E-OI
NA = Not applicable.
-------
                              1-13
                             Table 11
Applicable, Relevant and Appropriate, and To-Be-Considered Requirements
KtQlJlRtMENT
Chemical Specific:
•Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Definition of^Hazardous Waste
•Federal Drinking Water Standards
•New Jersey Drinking Water Standards
Location Specific
•Historic and Archaeologic Preservation
•Protection of Flood Plains
•Protection of Wetlands
•Threatened or Endangered Species
•Fish and Wildlife Coordination
•New Tersev Coastal Zone Merot. Act
Action Specific:
•Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Land Disposal Restrictions
Transportation of Hazardous Waste
Generator Requirements
Storage and Disposal Requirements
•Clean Air Act
•NJDEP Solid and Hazardous Waste Regulations
•Publicly Owned Treatment Works
•The Clean Air Act
•NJDEP Asbestos Remediation Regulations
•NJDEP Air Emission Regulations for Mercury
•NJDEP Technical Requirements for Site Remediation
Cither Pertinent Requirements:
•Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 19701
•Public Buildings, Property, and Works1
•Public Contracts1
•Occupational Safety and Health Act
•New Jersey Uniform Construction Code
•Hudson Regional Health Commission Air
Pollution Control Code
•Chy of Hoboken Building Code
•Local Lead-based Paint Abatement Requirements
•National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health Guidelines
•American Council of Government
Industrial Hygienists Guidelines
AppUUUC
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

norvaui at.
X
X



1 o oc
rVinpA-n-H




.XK
A pplirThl*

X
X
X
X
X

I ' ttus R. :uirement is only applicable if a relocation is performed by the U-S.Govenunent, and would not apply to
1 other pirties (such as PRPs) in the event those parties conduct relocation-related Site activities.
-------
                      1 - 14
                    Table 12
Detailed Cost Analysis of Remedial Alternative Five
Item
Building Maintenance and Security
Temporary Relocation
Permanent Relocation
Occupant Moving Expenses
Unit Cost
$
$10,000'/mo
40,OOOVmo
9,915,6002
22,500/unit
Time to
Complete
12 months
12 months
n/a
n/a
Subtotal for Building Security and Maintenance an«r» for Relocation Activities
Building Demolition
n/a
11 months
Subtotal for Building Demolition
Soil Contaminant Sampling/Remediation
Groundwater Contaminant Monitoring and Analysis
n/a
n/a
1 month
Iday
Subtotal for Soil and Groundwater
Real Estate Value at Project Completion
1,567,500s
n/a
Subtotal for Real Property Compensation
TOTAL Costs Estimated for Remedial Alternative Five
23 months'
Capital Cost
Estimate
$120,000
480,000
9,915,600
337,500
10,853,000
4,359,075J
4,359,000
213,400
3,840
217,000'
(1,567,500)
(1,568,000)
$13,861,000
Present Worth
Cost
$120,000
480,000
9,915,600
337,500
10,853,000
4,359,075
4,359,000
213,400
3,840
217,000
(1,567,500)
(1,568,000)
$13,861,000
1 Cost estimate based on average present EPA expenditure levels, and include 12 month design period.
2 Cost estimates for Permanent Relocation consists of EPA purchase of living spaces and common areas in the buildings and townhouse, and purchase of
the adjacent parking area, and were based on April 1996, EPA appraisals not reflective of appraisals to be conducted concurrent to remedial design.
3 Cost and Time Estimates for Building Demolition are based on the March 11, 1997, Technical Engineering Evaluation for Rer.iediation at the Grand Street
Site. Due to additional steps added to the project by EPA (see Section 5.5, above), the estimated length of time to complete the Demolition Action has
been increased by 2 months, and costs have been increased by 5%.
4 Cost and Time estimates assumptions for Soil and Groundwater activities are provided at Appendix I.
5 Cost estimate assumptions for Real Estate Values are provided ar Appendix I.
6 Overall time estimate based on: 12 months remedy design; and 11 months remedy implementation.
-------
    ATTACHMENT 2




NJDEP Letter of Concurrence
-------
£3  25 ?
                                  0f
 Inrfil Whttmjn            Department at Env.rtjnmrntal Protection                 Robert I" ihtnn. !r
                                              September  24. 1997
Us. Jeanne H. Fox
Regional Adainister
USEPA - Regional II
290 Broadway - Floor 19
New York, NY  10007-1866

Subject:    Grand Street Mercury Superfund Site
            Record of Decision (ROD)

Dear Ms. Fox:

The Department of  Environmental  Protection has  evaluated and concurs «lth  the
following specific components of the selected remedy for the Grand Street  Mercury
Superfund Sile as seated below;

This is  the  first  and  only  planned operable unit for the Grand  Street  Mercury
Site.  It addresses the threats posed by contaminated buildings  and soil ac  the
Sice and provides for permanent relocation of (.he former  residents  of  che Site.

The major components of the selected remedy that NJDEP concurs with  includes  the
following:

      *      Permanent  relocation  of  Che  former  residents  of  the  Site   in
             accordance with che Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
            Acquisition Policies Ace of  1970;
      *      Continuation of temporary  relocation of  the  former residents until
             permanent relocation has been implemented;
      *     Historic preservation mitigation measures for  che buildings at  the
             Site,  as appropriate;
      *      Orosa mercury decontamination of the buildings at the Site  including
             recovery of available mercury, whenever  possible:
      *      Abatement of friable asbestos  in all buildings  at the  Site;
      *      Removal and. recovery  of reusable fixtures and recyclable scrap metal
             and  other building components;
      *      Demolition  of  che two buildings  at  the  Site  using  measures  to
            minimize releases of mercury into air:
      *      Removal and off-site disposal  of all demolition debris:
      *      Sampling of soils ac the Sice;
      *      Excavation and off-site disposal of all  contaminated soils;
      *      Sampling of soils ac off-sice  adjacent  locations
      *     Sampling of groundwacer ac che site; and
      *     Assessment of off-sice soil and groundwacer data to  evaluate  che
            need for future remedial action.

KJDEP concurs  chat che selected  remedy  is  protective  of human health  and  Che
environment, complies with  requirements Chat are  legally  applicable or relevant
-------
and appropriace co the remedial action,  and  is cost effective.  Please note that
DtP considers SJAC 7;26E-1  Co  be  applicable co  this  sice.

The  Stac*  of  New Jersey  appreciates   Che  opportunity  co  participate  in cht
         making process and looks forward co future cooperation uich the USEPA
-------
  ATTACHMENT 3




Responsiveness Summary
-------
      RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
              FOR THE
         RECORD OF DECISION
              FOR THE
GRAND STREET MERCURY SUPERFUND SITE
-------
                                CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION	  1

2.0 SUMMARY OF EPA'S SELECTED REMEDY  	 3

3.0 BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERN	 3

4.0 SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD AND EPA'S RESPONSES TO THESE COMMENTS 	 4
4.1 EPA's PROPOSED PLAN	 5
4.2 THE SITE'S IMPACT ON THE PRIOR BUILDING RESIDENTS	:	 9
4.3 LIABILITY	 12
4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING AT THE SITE	  13
4.5 OTHER GENERAL COMMENTS 	  15

5.0 COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY OF MAJOR TECHNICAL COMMENTS AND EPA'S
RESPONSES TO THESE COMMENTS	17
5.1 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY  	 17
5.2 STERNS AND WEINROTH ON BEHALF OF JOHN J. PASCALE, SR	 57
5.3 HELLRING LJNDEMAN GOLDSTEIN fie SIEGAL ON BEHALF OF DAVID PASCALE 	 61
5.4 DR. MICHAEL GOCHFELD	 65
5.S GEORGE N.PAPPAS ON BEHALF OF EUGENIO NOTARO	 68

ATTACHMENT 1 - BASIS FOR EPA'S INHALATION REFERENCE CONCENTRATION FOR ELEMENTAL MERCURY
VAPOR 	A-l
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A           PROPOSED PLAN
APPENDIX B            PUBLIC NOTICES
APPENDIX C           SIGN-IN CARDS
APPENDIX D           TRANSCRIPT OF JULY 16, 1997 PUBLIC MEETING
APPENDIX E            WRITTEN COMMENTS
-------
1.0   INTRODUCTION

As part of its public participation responsibilities, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) held a public comment period from July 9 through September 8, 1997, for interested
parties to comment on EPA's Proposed Plan for the Grand Street Mercury Site ("the Site") in
Hoboken, New Jersey. The Proposed Plan described the alternatives that EPA considered for
relocating the prior residents of the building and for remediating mercury contamination in
the building and in the soil at the Site.

EPA held a public meeting at Hoboken High School on July 16, 1997. During the public
meeting, representatives from EPA discussed the preferred remedy, answered questions, and
received oral and written comments on the alternative recommended in the Proposed Plan
and other remedial alternatives under consideration.

In addition to comments received during the public meeting, EPA received written comments
throughout the public comment period. EPA's responses to significant comments, both oral
and written, received during the public meeting and public comment period, are summarized
in this Responsiveness Summary.  All comments summarized in this document were factored
into EPA's final determination of a remedy for cleaning up the Site. EPA's selected remedy
for the Site is described in the Decision Summary of the Record of Decision.

The Responsiveness Summary is organized into the following sections.

2.0    Summary of Selected Remedy. This section outlines EPA's selected remedy for the
       Site.

3.0    Background On Community Involvement And Concerns.  This section provides  a
       brief history of community interest and concerns regarding the Site.
-------
4.0   Summary Of Major Questions And Comments Received From The Local
      Community And EPA's Responses To These Comments. This section summarizes
      both oral and written comments submitted to EPA by the local community during the
      public comment period and provides EPA's responses to these comments.  "Local
      community" means those individuals who have identified themselves as living in the
      vicinity of the Site and are potentially threatened from a health or environmental
      standpoint.

5.0   Comprehensive Summary Of Significant Technical Comments And EPA's
      Responses To These Comments.  This section summarizes other written comments
      submitted to EPA during the public comment period and provides EPA's responses to
      these comments.  It is comprised of specific technical questions and, where necessary,
      elaborates with technical detail on answers covered in Section 4.0

APPENDICES

There are five appendices attached to this document.  They are as follows:

APPENDIX A:  Proposed Plan
APPENDIX B:  Public Notices that were printed in the Jersey Journal ana Hoboken Reporter
                newspapers  to announce the public meetings and extension of the public
                comment period.
APPENDDC C:  Copies of sign-in cards from the public meeting.
APPENDIX D:  Transcript of the July 16, 1997 public meeting. EPA's responses to comments
                submitted during the public meeting are included in Section 4.0 and 5.0.
APPENDIX E:  Written comments received by EPA during the public comment period and
                summarized in Sections 4.0 and 5.0 of the Responsiveness Summary. EPA's
                responses to the written comments are also included in Sections 4.0 and 5.0.
-------
2.0   SUMMARY OF SELECTED REMEDY

The major components of the selected remedy include: permanent relocation of the former
residents of the Site; continuation of temporary relocation of the former residents until
permanent relocation has been implemented; historic preservation mitigation measures for the
buildings at the Site, as appropriate; gross mercury decontamination of the buildings at the Site
including recovery of available mercury, whenever possible; abatement of friable asbestos in all
buildings at the Site; removal and recovery of reusable fixtures and recyclable scrap metal and
other building components; demolition of the two buildings at the Site using measures to
minimize releases of mercury into the environment; removal and off-site disposal of all
demolition debris; sampling of soils at the Site; excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated
soils; sampling of soils at off-site adjacent locations; sampling of groundwater at the Site; and,
assessment of off-site soil and groundwater data to evaluate the need for future remedial action.

3.0   BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERN

The discovery of mercury i» a residential building, coupled with the evacuation and temporary
relocation of its residents in January 1996, fueled media attention and the concern of residents
and local officials. In response, EPA conducted various ongoing activities to keep the residents
and local officials updated about technical and enforcement activities. These activities included:
ongoing support of the temporary relocation program; information letters to residents to
inform them about sampling results and other technical and relocation issues; small group
briefings with the residents and local officials; and site tours for members of the local, regional,
state, and federal governments and the media.

Media coverage of the Grand Street Mercury Site was heavy around the time the residents were
being relocated.  This included nightly news reports on the New York metropolitan television
and radio stations during several weeks of intense activity at the site. In addition, major articles
were written in most of the regional daily and weekly newspapers.  Since then, the Hohoken
-------
Reporter and Jersey Journal have written follow-up stories about the site. Media coverage
intensified again when the Proposed Plan for addressing mercury at the site was released to the
public in July 1997.

In February and March 1997, EPA conducted community interviews with former building
residents, neighbors, and local officials to identify their concerns, information needs, and how
they would like to be involved in decisions made aSout the Site. In July 1997, EPA issued a
final Community Relations Plan for the Site.

On July 9, 1997, EPA opened a 30 day public comment period for the Proposed Plan.  The
comment period, which was scheduled to end on August 7, was extended an additional 30 days
to September 8, at the request of two potentially responsible parties. Public notices were placed
in the Jersey Journal and Hoboken Reporter newspapers to publicize the  comment period, public
meeting, and the extension of the comment period. Copies of the notices are attached as
Appendix B.

On July 16, 1997, EPA held a public meeting in Hoboken High School. Approximately 100
people attended. Copies of the sign-in cards from the public meeting are attached as Appendix
C.  In general, most of the prior building residents, community members, and officials expressed
support for EPA's Proposed Plan, while the potentially responsible parties opposed it.  A
transcript of the public meeting is attached as Appendix D. Written comments received by
EPA during the public comment period are included in Appendix E.

4.0  SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC
     COMMENT PERIOD AND EPA's RESPONSES TO THESE COMMENTS

Oral and written comments raised by the local community during the public comment period
and EPA's responses to them are summarized below. The original written comments are
attached as Appendix E. The comments are organized into the following general categories:
-------
4.1   EPA's Proposed Plan
4.2   The Site's Impact on the Prior Building Residents
4.3   Liability
4.4   Environmental Testing at the Site
4.5   Other

4.1     EPA's Proposed Plan

4.1.1  Comment: A number of elected officials as well a number of the former residents,
representatives from the Environment Committee of Hoboken, and a number of community
members expressed support for EPA's Proposed Plan.

EPA Response: These comments are significant since they were voiced by so many
commenters. No response necessary.

4.1.2  Comment: Elected officials and community members urged EPA to move forward with
the proposed remedy quickly and effectively, and to keep the needs of the prior building
residents first and foremost.

EPA Response: EPA's actions, throughout its involvement at the Site over the last year and a
half, clearly demonstrate the Agency's commitment to address this Site. In less than two years,
EPA has expediently collected data, prepared a risk assessment and focussed feasibility study,
and  has issued a Proposed Plan for remediation of the Site.  EPA acknowledges the impacts that
recent events have had on the former residents of the Site. EPA has expedited the remedy
selection process at the Site primarily because of the problems associated with lengthy
temporary relocation, including the stress suffered by the building residents. EPA emphasizes
that the first step in the remedial process will be permanent relocation of the former residents.
-------
4.1.3   Comment: A community member expressed support for relocating the prior residents
and reusing the building.  He asked if the building's mercury levels were currently too high f0[
industrial use.

EPA Response:  EPA monitoring of the buildings (included in the Administrative Record for
the Site) has determined that mercury vapor concentrations within the buildings have
consistently exceeded EPA's risk-based cleanup goal for indu-trial/commercial use. Therefore,
EPA does not believe that the buildings are presently suitable for industrial/commercial use.

4.1.4   Comment: A community member expressed concern that if there is a fire in the
building, mercury would be released into the air and affect nearby residents. For that reason, he
does not believe that the building can be remediated for future use.

EPA Response: An air-dispersion model was used by EPA  immediately after determining the
extent of mercury contamination at the Site which showed that under a "worst-case" scenario, a
fire in the building could result in high levels of mercury being released into the atmosphere.
Therefore, in the  short-term, in order to minimize the potential  risk of a fire at the Site and
exposure to airborne mercury, EPA has improved the sprinkler system and connected the
building's electronic fire alarm directly to a central fire station. The electronic fire alarm is
tested frequently. The Hoboken Fire Department has conducted several inspections of the
building as part of its regular contingency planning procedures.  In addition, the Fire
Department has informed EPA that it has developed a  response plan to be used in the event of a
fire in the building. While  these actions minimize the risk of fire, they do not preclude the
possibility of fire. Since remediation of the building for future use may result in residual
mercury contamination in the building, future risk of fire and release to the surrounding
community would not be eliminated.  EPA's selected alternative-demolition and off-site
disposal - would  eliminate  this risk.
-------
4.1.5   Comment: A community member commented that he has not heard from any experts
that have the qualifications to determine whether or not the Proposed Plan is supportable by
scientific and other technical expertise. He stated that somebody should have been given the
opportunity to get an independent consultant to review the plan.

EPA Response:  EPA encourages public comment on each remedy selected for Superfund sites.
During community interviews for the Community Relations Plan, EPA informed the prior
building residents, local officials, several community members, and members of the
Environment Committee of Hoboken about the availability of a grant through the Technical
Assistance Grant (TAG) program. The TAG program provides funds for qualified citizens'
groups affected by a Superfund site to hire independent technical advisors to help them
understand and comment on site-related information, and thus participate in cleanup decisions.
To date, there have been no TAG applications related the Site. However, a community
organization could still apply for the grant and use the funding to hire independent technical
advisors during the next phases of work at the Site. In addition, EPA notes that the
Administrative Record contains a technical evaluation and risk assessment which were prepared
by consultants with expertise in several fields including site cleanup, engineering, and public
health. EPA also notes that the former residents of the Site are participants in the Technical
Outreach Services for Communities program fTOSC) which provides technical assistai  -i,
education and training for people affected by hazardous wastes sites and which has enabled them
to consult with experts at several academic institutions regarding the Site.

4.1.6  Comment: A community member suggested that if the potentially responsible party
were willing to pay half the cost of remediation, and EPA paid for the demolition component,
then the project could move forward more quickly. EPA could go back later and recover the
money from the potentially responsible party.

EPA Response: As an initial matter, EPA must note that CERCLA and the NCP do not direct
EPA to consider the liability of any person in selecting a remedy. Therefore, liability issues are
-------
irrelevant in the ROD process. However, EPA does wish to point out the enforcement option;
EPA has under CERCLA in response to the comment.  Whenever possible, EPA requires
potentially responsible parties (PRPs), through administrative and/or civil judicial actions, to
clean up hazardous waste sites. Although EPA is willing to negotiate with PRPs to undertake
remedial action, EPA also has the legal authority to order PRPs to undertake specified cleanup
actions. Should the parties refuse to comply with such an Order, EPA may seek to have the
Order enforced in federal district court or EPA may conduct the work itself, and later take legal
action against the PRPs to recover cleanup costs incurred by EPA. All work performed by
PRPs must be conducted in accordance with EPA-approved work plans and must meet the same
standards required for actions financed through Superfund.

4.1.7   Comment: The New Jersey Green Party candidate for Governor urged EPA to make
sure the remediation plans are protective of the surrounding community and will not expose
them  to dust, vapors, fugitive emissions, or other harm. She requested that EPA err on the side
of safety and caution in protecting the surrounding community.

EPA Response:  EPA agrees with the commenter on the importance of safety and intends to
take measures to ensure that any increased mercury vapor,  dust, and noise generation that may
occur during juilding demolition, does not endanger the surrounding community.  For
instance, careful attention will be paid to ensure that workers are fully protected from mercury
exposure during the remedial  or demolition effort and are decontaminated prior to leaving the
Site, and that the building is secured and work space maintained under negative pressure to
minimize off-site releases.  In  addition, air quality will be monitored both on- and off -site
during remediation activities. If monitoring reveals air releases in excess of EPA standards,
work will be halted and corrective actions will be taken before resuming work. EPA will work
with community officials during the development of the demolition plans to ensure proper
precautions are taken to protect the community during demolition.
-------
4.1.8   Comment: A prior resident objected to the building being remediated for industrial use
because of the potential for residual contamination to damage the health of people who may
work in the building in the future.

EPA Response: EPA's response to this comment is fully addressed in EPA's response to
comment 5.1. EPA agrees that cleanup of the building, either to industrial or residential
standards, would likely result in some residual contamination remaining in the building. EPA
evaluated an alternative which assumed that the building would be used for
industrial/commercial purposes in the future.  EPA is uncertain whether available technologies
could permanently remediate the building to levels protective of future industrial workers.
Additionally, EPA believes that this alternative is not implementable because of the current and
future trends in land use in Hoboken which favor residential, not industrial use of the Site.

4.2    The Site's Impact on the Prior Building Residents

4.2.1  Comment:  Several elected officials stated that the Proposed Plan cakes an important
step in allowing the residents to move forward with their lives. Many commenters noted that
the former residents have been living with the physical effects of exposure to mercury, severe
emotional distress, and financial constraints and that they have suffered a grt  . deal. These
concerns were echoed by the residents themselves, many of whom expressed feelings of
emotional distress, loss, and  numbness over the uncertainty of their situation and financial
resources.  One prior resident stated that she and her husband delayed their pregnancy for six
months because elevated  mercury concentrations were found in her urine.  They did have a
child and would like to have another, but they are reluctant to have another because they
believe it would be too difficult while they are living in a temporary situation. Several other
prior residents  described  the terror at learning they had several times the safe, legal
concentration of mercury in their bodies. Because the effects of mercury exposure have yet to
be determined, they too have postponed indefinitely their plans to start a families.
-------
                                           10
EPA Response:  EPA acknowledges the impacts that recent events have had on the former
residents of the Site. EPA has expedited the remedy selection process at the Site primarily
because of the problems associated with lengthy temporary relocation, including the stress
suffered by the building residents. EPA emphasizes that the first step in the remedial process
will be permanent relocation of the former residents.

4.2.2.  Comment: An attorney representing one of the former residents stated that his client
made a substantial investment in this property to make it something he would be proud of and
to live in for many years. Now, his client h ~s no intention of ever setting foot in the building at
the Site again under any circumstances.

A number of residents described their shared dream and achievement of taking an empty
building on a half-empty street and developing it into affordable lining units that included the
studio work space they needed to practice their art.  One resident described the residents' plans
to use common space on the first floor for a community gallery, space for concerts,
performances,  and art studios to hold classes for the community. Another  described how real
estate picked up on that street once the residents received final site plan approval from the City
of Hoboken.

Against this backdrop, the residents described how the dreams  became a nightmare.  The stress
of their displacement, as well as the exposure to mercury, has brought on illness  and suffering
and fear for their health and well-being.  Ailments reported by the residents included chest
pains, depression, elevated blood pressure, heart arrhythmia, kidney problems, nightmares,
respiratory problems, short-term memory loss, sleep and vision disorders, and tremors. They
urged EPA to proceed with the Proposed Plan as quickly as possible.

An attorney representing an additional former resident expressed support for EPA's Proposed
Remedy with regard to demolition of the building and financial restoration for the former
-------
                                           11
residents so they can move on with their lives. The residents urged EPA to permanently
relocate them as quickly as possible so they can move forward with their lives.

EPA Response: See EPA's response to Comment 4.2.1.

4.2.3   Comment: Several commenters stated that it is essential that the prior building
residents secure a fair settlement and remuneration for their property.  A community member
suggested that the residents receive health coverage in perpetuity as well as compensation for
their monetary losses.

EPA Response: EPA's selected remedy includes permanent relocation of the former residents.
Permanent relocation will be conducted in accordance with applicable federal guidelines and
will consist of the provision of relocation benefits to owners and occupants of the Site,
including:  compensation for the property to be acquired; moving and related expenses;
replacement housing assistance; and relocation advisory services. Health coverage is not an item
which EPA is authorized to provide under the CERCLA removal or remedial program.

4.2.4  Comment: Several former residents described how they were exceptionally cautious;
insisting, prior to purchasing the property, on documentation as. -.ring the safety of the building
for residential use. A resident stated that they never would have considered buying a "toxin
soaked" building to live in if they had known. The residents stated that they relied on the
assurances of the state government, their lawyers, and environmental experts that the building
was clean and safe. Now, their sense of safety is gone and replaced with an underlying distrust
and constant stress. One resident stated that what is most upsetting is that the residents, who
are the victims, are being perceived in some quarters as criminals, responsible for the problem
and for bearing the costs of the cleanup.
-------
                                           12
EPA Response:  EPA acknowledges the impacts that recent events have had on the former
residents of the Site.  Under CERCLA and the NCP, EPA does not consider the liability of any
person in selecting a remedy. Therefore, liability issues are irrelevant in the ROD process.

4.3    Liability

4.3.1   Comment: The parent of a resident asked about the residents' financial liability for
their mortgages on the units in the building if the building is demolished.

EPA Response: The residents will receive just compensation for their property as part of
permanent relocation. The residents can use the funds they receive in any way they choose,
although in EPA's experience, permanently relocated persons usually first apply the monies
they receive to the mortgage they hold on the property EPA is acquiring. Any liability for
mortgages held by the residents is governed by the mortgage documents) entered into by the
residents and the lender.

4.3.2   Comment: A former resident stated that since she was unable to close on her unit (Unit
5D) because of the mercury problem, she may not  be eligible for assistance from the permanent
relocation program.  She asked EPA and the former residents to embrace her family and let
them participate in the permanent relocation package.

EPA Response:  Permzr.ent relocation will be undertaken in  accordance with the provisions of
the Uniform  Relocation and Real Property Acquisitions Policy Act of 1970 and its applicable
regulations.  EPA will evaluate the commenter's status as landowner at the Site, and will
provide benefits as appropriate.

4.3.3   Comment: A community member stated that the artists and their families have suffered
the most, but, as the  buyers, they had the ultimate responsibility to know what they  were
buying.  In addition, their attorneys failed to protect them and are equally liable. The
-------
                                          13
government is also liable for not flagging the situation in time, as well as the seller for not
revealing the building's history.

EPA Response: As stated above, under CERCLA and the NCP, EPA does not consider the
liability of any person in selecting a remedy. Therefore, liability issues are irrelevant in the
ROD process.

4.3.4   Comment:  A community member stated that since General Electric contributed to
contamination in the building, it should pay for th: proposed remedy.

EPA Response: See EPA's response to comment 4.1.6, above.

4.3.5   Comment:  A community member recommended that EPA's Record of Decision
include a discussion of how EPA is targeting individual  PRPs.  If that information is not
included in the Record of Decision, he would appreciate additional information on that area.

EPA Response: The Record of Decision contains the names of individuals or companies that to
date have been issued Orders to perform work under CERCLA. Information regarding
individual PRP liability is generally not included in the Administrative Record for selection of a
response action except to the extent such information is considered or relied on in selecting the
response action. Information which is general and applies to all  EPA response actions is
available at all EPA regional libraries and on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov.

4.4    Environmental Testing at the Site

4.4.1   Comment:  A community member asked why EPA did  not do the necessary tests up
front to determine whether there is an impact to groundwater. In addition, he asked if there
were in fact petroleum hydrocarbons at the Site, and how EPA ruled out carcinogens as a
possible source of injury to the residents.  He asked whether EPA had looked at all other
-------
                                           14
possible contamination at the Site that could have affected the residents.  He asked whether
EPA had characterized the Site completely, both horizontally and vertically, for all
contamination other than mercury that could possibly be at the Site.

EPA Response: EPA's first concern on this and all Superfund sites is to remove or remedy any
immediate risks from the Site.  In this case, EPA's priorities are to relocate the dissociated
residents, and to prevent risks to the local community from mercury contamination within the
buildings. Data from environmental testing at the Site, the Risk Assessment, and the Focused
Feasibility Study provided EPA with sufficient information to make a decision on a site remedy
without further delays associated with additional studies.

There are no risks to the community from potential contamination in groundwater because
groundwater is not used as a source of potable water in Hoboken.  However, in the interest of
thoroughness and because the groundwater is protected by the State of New Jersey as a potential
drinking water source, EPA plans to characterize the groundwater during the remedial action
and, if warranted, will undertake further study or action.

Also, under New Jersey's Environmental Cleanup Responsibility Act (ECRA) program, the soil
beneath the parking lot was characterized for b_e neutral aromatic pollutants and petroleum
hydrocarbons.  Because elevated concentrations of these contaminants were later detected in the
parking lot, the NJDEP ECRA program directed the property owner to install an asphalt cap
over the entire parking lot, and to record a Declaration of Environmental Restriction and Grant
of Easement (DERGE) with the County Clerk's office.  This DERGE calls for maintenance of
the cap, and disallows penetration of the cap without prior approval from NJDEP. EPA
therefore believes tnat the contamination identified in soils at the site is sufficiently contained to
prevent contact with the contamination in the short-term.

In addition, EPA has characterized for  mercury the soil beneath the parking lot and at an off-
site residence. As part of its selected remedy for the Site, EPA will characterize the soil for all
-------
                                          15
Superfund target analytes and target compounds, and will excavate and dispose of all soil above
the remedial action goals calculated in EPA's risk assessment.

4.4.2   Comment: A community member expressed concern about the volume of mercury
found in the building and asked how so much mercury could have come to be there.

EPA Response:  Mercury associated with the manufacture of mercury vapor lamps, other
lamps and switches at the Site is believed to be the primary source for the mercury currently in
the building. In 13 of the 16 units in whic'- a small area of flooring (one square meter) was
removed, puddles or droplets of mercury were found. Results of EPA's sampling show that air
in the building as well  as outside soil, sediments in the building surnps, and interior bricks are
contaminated with mercury.  For that reason, during the performance of the selected remedy,
the flooring will be methodically removed, removing all liquid mercury and dust encountered
between layers. Additionally, all wastes generated will be fully characterized and disposed of at
an EPA-approved off-site facility(ies).

4.5    Other General Cosunents

4.5.1   Comment: A community member  -iked what is known about the well-being of earlier
occupants and workers who spent time in the building over the years.

EPA Response: EPA has no information on the health of people associated with the building
prior to 1994.  It has been reported to EPA that the elevated mercury levels previously observed
in the urine of 21 dissociated building residents and workers involved in the building renovation
have returned to within the normal range. EPA has no documentation supporting this report.
Personal and community health assessments are not conducted by EPA, but rather by the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), upon request.
-------
                                          16
4.5.2   Comment: A number of the prior residents thanked EPA for the information,
assistance, and support during their relocation ordeal. A resident stated that without EPA's
funding to help them through, the families would not have been able to cope because they
drained all their resources putting their units together.  Others noted EPA's careful, scientific
investigation of the building.  A representative from the Environment Committee of Hoboken
commended EPA for its professionalism in seeking out the input of their organization early in
the process, and for notifying its members about the public meeting.

EPA Response: EPA acknowledges the impacts that  recent events have had on the former
residents of the Site. EPA encourages and appreciates community involvement in the
Superfund process.

4.5.3   Comment: Several commenters expressed support for listing the Site on the Superfund
program's National Priorities List as quickly as possible, for it will enable the residents to focus
on permanent relocation.

EPA Response: The Grand Street Mercury Site was added to the Superfund National Priorities
List (NPL) on September 25,  1997.
-------
                                         17

5.0   COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY OF MAJOR TECHNICAL COMMENTS AND

      EPA'S RESPONSES TO THESE COMMENTS


5.1. Response to Comments raised by General Electric Company


The General Electric Company (GE) provided a significant number of comments, both at the

July 16, 1997 Public Meeting and in its September 8, 1997 submittal to EPA, which pertain to

the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (Risk Assessment), Focussed Feasibility Study

(FFS), and the Proposed Plan. GE has also provided an executive summary and a background

section prior to its detailed written comments. Therefore, EPA is responding to GE's executive

summary and background section (pages 1-10 of the September 8, 1997 submission) as well as

the more detailed comments on pages 11-47 of GE's submission.  Because the comments made in

GE's executive summary are repeated in more detail in its specific comments, EPA's has

prepared a combined response to GE's executive summary and its specific comments.1
     GE has stated in the introduction to its comments that "GE reserves the right to.provide
   additional comments and to supplement the administrative record hi the future." Note
   that EPA is not required to consider comments submitted to the Agency after the close of
   the public comment period. Section 300.430(f)(3) of the NCP states that EPA must
   "[provide a reasonable opportunity, not less than 30 calendar days, for submission of
   written and oral comments on the proposed plan...[U]pon timely request, [EPA] will
   extend the public comment period by a minimum of 30 additional days. In this instance,
   EPA originally set the public comment period for 30 calendar days«until August 7,1997.
   EPA later extended the public comment period at GE's request to September 8,1997.
   Accordingly, the public comment period is now closed and, with the issuance of this
   Record of Decision, the Administrative Record for this action is also closed. Any future
   comments submitted by GE will not be part of the Administrative Record unless EPA
   chooses to supplement the Record per Section 300.825 of the NCP.
-------
                                           18
Response to GE's Executive Summary

Because the comments made in GE's executive summary are repeated in more detail in its
specific comments, EPA's has prepared a combined response to GE's executive summary and its
specific comments. Accordingly, EPA's detailed response to each assertion made in GE's
executive summary is included in EPA's responses to pages  11-47 of GE's comments below.

Response to GE's Background Section

EPA has not prepared a point-by-point response to the background section of GE's comments.
However, EPA notes that certain statements in GE's background section are wrong or
incomplete. Therefore, EPA is correcting certain facts and presenting additional facts which are
critical to a full understanding of the backdrop against which the EPA's response actions at the
Site have been taken. For ease  of reference, EPA is presenting these facts, as appropriate, under
the same subheadings as GE uses in its background section.

Responses to GE Comments related to "The Industrial History of the Site"

EPA has determined that there were essentially three entities which m_iiufactured products
containing mercury at the Site: Cooper Hewitt Electric Company 1; GE; and, Cooper-Hewitt
Electric Company 2. Cooper Hewitt 1 operated from 1910 to approximately 1919.  GE
operated between approximately 1919 and 1948.  Cooper-Hewitt 2 operated between 19
aDDroximatelv 1965. GSAP acauired the Site in 199V 28 vpar<: afrpr maniifarnirincr arri^j
uperaieu oecween approximately 1717 ana i7to. ^ooper-newitt z operated Detween 17^0 an
approximately 1965.  GSAP acquired the Site in 1993, 28 years after manufacturing activities
involving mercurv had ceased at the Site.
-------
                                          19
Responses to GE Comments related to "The Unlawful Sale and Conversion of the [Site] to
Residential Condominiums"

GE has included a discussion of the liability of the Grand Street Artists Partnership ("GSAP")
and the individual unit owners at the Site.2  This is not germane since remedy selection under
CERCLA is based on the nine criteria outlined in Section 300.430 of the NCP, and these nine
criteria do not include an analysis of any person's CERCLA liability.

EPA has no reason to believe that the GSAP, its partners, or any of the current residents
brought mercury to the Site. EPA has no reason to believe that the GSAP, its partners, or any
of the current residents knew there was mercury contamination at the time the  GSAP
purchased the Site in 1993.

GE incorrectly states that David Pascale "did not disclose [to the NJDEP] the planned
conversion of the [Site] for residential use." Information obtained by EPA indicates that the
GSAP purchased the building only after having obtained clearance from the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection ("NJDEP"), which had been told by the GSAP's
environmental consultant that the building would be used for residential purposes. GE fails to
mention the numerous attempts at mercury remediation  made by the GSAP, its partners,  and
the current residents.

Responses to GE Comments  related to "The Temporary Relocation"

GE fails to mention the actual mercury levels documented in the former residents. On
December 27, 1995, the HHD and the Hudson Regional Health Commission collected urine
      2  EPA notes that CERCLA liability is one of the subjects of Grand Street Artists et al.
v. General Electric Company, et. al.. Civil Action Docket No. 96-3774 (HAA) and Anthony
Mastromauro v. General Electric Company, et al.. Civil Action No. 97-1123 (HAA).
-------
                                           20
samples from 31 people associated with the Site (29 residents and 2 workers who had made
repairs in the building). Results indicated total mercury levels ranging from 3 to 102
micrograms per liter. Twenty of the samples contained levels equal to or greater than 20
micrograms per liter, the upper limit of background mercury concentrations in adults. The
urine mercury concentrations of three children were found to be over three times higher than
the upper limit for unexposed adults.  Indeed, five of the six children tested had mercury levels
greater than 20 micrograms per liter.  Within days of the HHD  request, based in part on the
preceding findings, the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
announced that, "the concentrations of mercury detected in the  residents may be associated with
subtle neurological changes," and concluded that the residents should be relocated from the Site,

GE also fails to mention the severity of the mercury contamination at the Site:

         Mercury vapor readings taken by EPA in the breathing zone  in the building have
         ranged from below detection to over 300 micrograms per cubic meter ^ug/m3).
         Elevated levels of mercury vapor have been detected in all of  the units in the main
         building.  The ATSDR chronic Minimal Risk Level is 0.3 A*g/m3. Subsequently, EPA
         performed a risk assessment and calculated a risk-based remediation goal for
         residential use of the building of 0.09 ^g/m3 and a risk-based  remediatic  . goal for
         industrial use of the building of 0.44 Aig/m3.

         Mercury was detected in personal belongings which residents were attempting to take
         from the building after they were ordered to vacate the building by the HHD.

         Elevated levels of mercury were detected in the soils located beneath the parking lot at
         the Site and also in the soils located at an adjacent  property.  The levels detected in the
         soil located beneath the parking lot at the Site ranged from 0.77 to 290 milligrams per
         kilogram (mg/kg). The levels detected in the soils located at the adjacent property
         ranged from 5.5 to 39 mg/kg.
-------
                                          21
•        Visual inspection of the area beneath the floorboards in 13 of the 16 units examined
         revealed the presence of liquid mercury.

         Sampling of bricks in the building revealed elevated levels of mercury in 129 of 186
         (69.4%) bricks tested.. The levels ranged from below detection to 13,078 mg/kg.

•        EPA has determined through extensive monitoring that air, wood, soil, sediment,
         brick, and roofing material have been contaminated with elemental mercury.

•        Mercury is a hazardous substance with unique qualities. Because of its high density, it
         tends to settle in cracks and crevices of interior spaces.  It vaporizes at what is
         essentially room temperature and re-condenses to the liquid phase at cooler
         temperatures, adhering to surfaces. Its vapors are invisible and heavy, tending to settle
         in the breathing zone of children. The targets of exposure to mercury are believed to
         be the central nervous  system and kidneys.  Some of the effects of exposure to
         elemental mercury include tremors, depression, irritability, insomnia, emotional
         instability, and, at high doses, death.

GE asserts that EPA has managed the relocation "without utilizing basic (and legally required)
cost and fiscal management controls, such as confirming the unit owners' compliance with their
mortgage obligations, and has also provided temporary relocation to one couple who never even
moved into their assigned unit or even purchased it." EPA disagrees with GE's characterization
of its actions in implementing the temporary relocation program. EPA has consistently utilized
appropriate cost and fiscal management controls in its administration of the temporary
relocation program as required by the Uniform Relocation and Real Properties Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970 (URA)  as amended, 42 U.S.C.  § 4601 £i seq. (the "URA"). EPA has
conducted repeated inquiries to determine whether each individual unit owner is in compliance
with his/her mortgage obligations, and has  consistently found each to be in compliance. EPA
-------
                                           22
has evidence that, though one couple did not obtain a final certificate of occupancy or title to
their unit, they had virtually completed renovations and had partially moved in to the building
prior to identification of widespread mercury contamination.

GE states that "EPA has steadfastly refused to name the [GSAP] or any of the Site owners as
PRPs."  Under CERCLA and the NCP, EPA does not consider the liability of any person in
selecting a remedy. Therefore, liability issues are irrelevant in the ROD process.

5.1.1. Comments Pertaining to EPA's Risk Assessment and Remedy Selection

5.1.1.1. Comment (page 11):  GE stated that "EPA concludes that there is no viable available
technology that can remediate the building to the exposure standards that the Agency has
selected, and therefore the ... building must be destroyed." GE goes on to state that EPA's Risk
Assessment was performed "for the sole purpose of supporting EPA's pre-ordained remedial
preference, demolition of the [buildings at the Site]."

EPA Response:  This comment inaccurately represents EPA's conclusions regarding remedy
development and selection.  EPA strictly adhered to the NCP in arriving at its selection of a
remedy for the Site. EPA did not have a pre-ordained remedy in mind for the Site, and EPA
did not simply conclude in its Focussed Feasibility Study (FFS) or Proposed Plan that the
buildings at the Site could not be remediated as indicated by the above comments. Further,
EPA did not select the remedial action goals (referred to by GE as "exposure standards"), but
calculated them in a detailed Risk Assessment.  Because this comment does not accurately reflect
EPA's decisionmaking process, EPA wishes to explain in detail that process, and therefore
EPA's conclusions for remedy selection at the Grand Street Site, in its response to this
comment.

In accordance with NCP Section 300.430(b),  EPA first  conducted a Technical Engineering
Evaluation to identify and evaluate numerous available technologies and process options for
-------
                                           23
remediating the liquid and gaseous phases of elemental mercury contamination present at the
Site. EPA's Technical Evaluation also assessed the likelihood of successful remediation of the
buildings for residential reuse, and estimated costs for such remediation, and costs for
demolition in the event remediation was either infeasible or unsuccessful.  The Technical
Evaluation assessed the effectiveness of eight technologies and process options, and concluded
that the success of a remedial attempt would be unknown and could only be ascertained after
the attempt was made and long-term monitoring had occurred. The Technical Evaluation
further cautioned that "unless the building is demolished,... there will always be the potential
for exposure." Technical Evaluation at page viik

Second, as further specified by the NCP Section 300.430(d), EPA conducted a site-specific risk
assessment and, in doing so, EPA did not select exposure standards for the building, but
calculated risk-based exposure concentrations using standard EPA procedures and input
parameters to arrive at risk-based remedial action goals. These risk-based remedial action goals
constitute "exposure standards" specific to the Site. In the Risk Assessment, EPA evaluated
risks of exposure to mercury vapors and mercury-contaminated soil from both residential anJ
industrial/commercial worker perspectives, and generated remedial action goals protective of
human health and the environment. (Detailed discussion of the Risk Assessment and the
                      *
development of these remedial action goals can be found in EPA responses to comments 5.1.1.5.
to S.l.l.ll!, 5.1.1.15., and 5.1.1.17. to 5.1.1.19., below).

As further specified by CERCLA Section 121 and Section 300.430(e) and (f) of the NCP, EPA
then evaluated the available technologies and process options, existing monitoring data for the
Site, and the conclusions of the Risk Assessment, in a FFS. In the FFS, EPA evaluated five
remedial alternatives for the Site3. EPA is mandated to  assess each remedial alternative it
       3 The five remedial alternatives evaluated by EPA include:
   1 -  No Action (NCP-mandated to establish comparative baseline)
   2   Residential Building and Soil Remediation; Building Reoccupation by prior Residents;
       Soil and Ground Water Studies
   3 -  Residential Building and Soil Remediation; Permanent Relocation; Building
-------
                                           24
evaluates against rune criteria, which are divided into three sections: "Threshold Criteria which i
remedial alternative must meet in order to be considered for further evaluation, including
Overall protection of human health and the environment and Compliance with Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs); Balancing Criteria, any one of which may
weigh in favor of or against the selection of a remedial alternative, and include Long-term
effectiveness and permanence, Reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment,
Short-term effectiveness, Implementability, and Cost; and Modifying Criteria, which provide fw
public and local government input to the remedy selection process, including State acceptance
and Community acceptance.

In the FFS, EPA did not conclude that available technologies, alone or in combination, could
not remediate the building to the risk-based remedial action goals, as is stated by GE.  In fact,
EPA dearly states in the FFS that in any remediation scenario (as is reflected in the Technical
Evaluation as 'well), success could not be ascertained until after a remediation attempt was made,
Due to the extent to which mercury has permeated all components that were sampled in the
buildings, EPA believes that some residual mercury would remain after any attempt at
remediarion.  EPA therefore concluded that an extensive post-remediation monitoring program
would be necessary to ensure that this residual mercury did not once again migrate into the air
in the building and threaten the heakh of residential or industrial/commercial building
occupant*.

In Alternative 4, EPA concluded the degree of estimated success to be higher than in a
residential scenario (as in Alternatives 2 and 3), due to higher, more readily attained remedial
action goals.  However, for all three Alternatives, it would be impossible to ensure without
long-term monitoring that there would be no future risk associated with residual contamination
       Reoccupation; Soil and Ground Water Studies
   4 -  Industrial/Commercial Building and Soil Remediation; Permanent Relocation; Soil
       and Ground Water Studies
   5 -  Building Demolition; Soil Remediation; Permanent Relocation; Soil and Ground
       Water Studies
-------
                                           25
in the building structure. More importantly, the implementability of Alternative 4 is
problematic for the land use considerations discussed below.

In addition to these issues, in its selection of remedies at CERCLA NPL sites, pursuant to
OSWER Directive Number 9355.7-04 ("Land Use Guidance"), EPA must consider the
reasonably anticipated future land use of the Site.  According to this guidance, in developing
assumptions regarding the reasonably anticip ited future land use at the Grand Street Site, EPA
must look to current land use, current zoning and anticipated future zoning plans as expressed
by elected officials and the affected community, and current institutional controls at the Site,
among other considerations. Specifically, the  major points of the Directive which are applicable
to the Grand Street Site mandate:

    •  discussions with local land use planning authorities, appropriate officials, and the public
       to assist EPA in understanding the reasonably anticipated future uses of the land on
       which the Site is located;
    •  that the Remedial Action Objectives developed for the Site reflect this anticipated land
       use;
    •  that the Risk Assessment and the Feasibility Study be focussed on developing remedial
       alternatives which should lead to selection of alternatives consistent with this anticipated
       future land use; and,
    •  that land use in the area following completion of the remedy is considered as part of the
       remedy selection process.

At the Grand Street Site, EPA has evaluated current land use and determined it to be multi-
family residential at the Site, and primarily residential lightly mixed with industrial and
commercial properties in surrounding areas. The current zoning for the Site is R-2 Residence
District (Stabilization). This zoning is likely to be maintained in Hoboken in the future. In its
full context, the  Hoboken Code is actually even broader in its aim to protect, conserve, convert
-------
                                            26

and develop residential areas in Hoboken. Specifically, Section 196-15(A) of the Hoboken Cqde

states:


       Purpose. The purpose of this [R-2] district is to encourage neighborhood stability
       through conversion and rehabilitation of residential structures; to facilitate conversion of
       nonresidential to residential space; and to otherwise reinforce the residential
       characteristics of this district by restricting uses and structures not compatible with
       district objectives.


This conclusion is in accordance with repeated communication EPA has received from the City

of Hoboken on this subject. In each instance, the City has indicated that it is not amenable to

re-zoning the Site from its present R-2 District designation. EPA has also been repeatedly

informed by the City and the local community that Hoboken is presently undergoing an

observable and significant change from past industrial and commercial operations to residences,


In recent years, Hoboken's residential real estate is increasingly prized for residential, not

industrial purposes.4 In 1979, there were approximately 1,709 residential parcels in Hoboken.

By 1997, that number more than tripled to approximately 5,963 parcels. In.contrast,, industrial

development has virtually halted as evidenced by the fact there have been only two new

industrial properties constructed since 1979.5
       4 A June 25,1995 New York Times states "The once-bustling docks have been idle since
the mid-70's. The last manufacturing plant and once the city's largest employer, the landmark
Maxwell House coffee plant, was shuttered in 1992 and is in the process of being converted to an
office complex.... The condominium market surged in the mid-80's as young Wall Street
professionals pushed the prices ever higher. Real estate speculators contributed to the frenzy,
converting as many buildings into condominiums as possible, sometimes aggressively displacing
low- and moderate-income, long-time renters...."
       5 These statistics are based on a 9/24/97 telephone conversation between EPA and Hugh
McGuire, Tax Assessor for the City of Hoboken.
-------
                                          27
In a resolution of May 22, 1997, the City Council and Mayor of Hoboken acknowledge the
building to be a "residential building housing 17 families" as of December 1995, and call on EPA
to "expediently resolve the issue of permanent relocation of tenants and call for the demolition
or removal of 722 Grand Street and the environmental restoration of its land," both of which
statements are consistent with future residential land use in the City of Hoboken. This trend to
residential land use in Hoboken is also observed by GE's own independent appraisers, who
acknowledge that:

      Portions of Hoboken have recently b "en revitalized and some older buildings in the area
      have been renovated/converted to residential use. The demand for residential property
      in the area is substantially due to its proximity to New York City. ...  According to local
      brokers, there is a strong to moderate demand for new residential construction in the
      area [and] minimal vacant land is available for such construction6.

This issue of future land use was discussed with GE officials at meetings with EPA on March 10
and March 18,  1997. GE has been fully aware of the City of Hoboken Planning for the area
throughout the process, and went so far at these meetings as to discuss their past and planned
attempts to meet with the City of Hoboken officials to gain reconsideration.  EPA can only
assume that these meetings either never occurred or were unsuccessful.

These factors, collectively weighed, formed the basis for design of EPA's Risk Assessment and
ITS. As described above in detail, in the  interest  of thoroughness, EPA considered in the Risk
Assessment scenarios for worker exposure and thoroughly evaluated a remedial alternative
which restores the building to industrial/commercial use. It is not only the Risk Assessment
which drove EPA to select building demolition, but the reasonably anticipated residential end use
of the property which primarily drives the selection along with other considerations required
by CERCLA and the NCP.  In its consideration of land use, the preamble to the NCP, which
"does not mandate an assumption of future residential land use," also states that "[a]n
assumption of future residential land use may not be justifiable if the probability that the site
       6 American. Appraisal Associates.  "Appraisal of 16 Condominiums." Page 4.
September 5, 1997
-------
                                            28
will support residential use is small [emphasis added]." 55 FR 8666, 8710-11 (March 8, 1990).
Given all the facts outlined above, specifically that the Site is zoned for residential use, that the
Hoboken Zoning Ordinance encourages residential conversion, that the local elected officials
indicate they are unlikely to support industrial zoning reclassification or variance and that the
Site is currently used for  residential purposes, EPA believes that the future probability that the
site will continue to support residential use is large. The Land Use Guidance further defines
"reasonable" future industrial land use, specifically, "future industrial land use is likely to be a
reasonable assumption where a Site is currently used for industrial purposes, is located in an -rea
where the surroundings are zoned for indusf'al use, and the comprehensive plan predicts that
the site will continue to be used for industrial purposes."  EPA has thoroughly evaluated zoning
in Hoboken, and has determined that  the existing zoning for the site  and surrounding area is
residential, and will likely remain so in the future.

Accordingly, EPA believes that remediation of the building to industrial  standards (Alternative
4), while technically feasible, is inappropriate for and cannot be implemented at the Site.  Of
those alternatives which assume future residential use of the property (Alternatives 2, 3, and 5),
EPA  determined that Alternative 5 represents the best balance of trade-offs with respect to the
nine criteria as explained below.

EPA  determined that residential remediation (Alternatives  2 and 3) and reuse of the buildings
may be technically possible but would require long-term monitoring to ensure that
protectiveness is maintained for the future residents.  While such monitoring is also technically
feasible, it would not prevent a potential worst-case scenario in which families re-occupy the
building, only to be exposed to mercury at some point in the future. Input received during the
public comment period indicates the community would not support reuse  of the buildings at
the Site.  In  addition, EPA assessed the possibility of returning the prior residents to the
building after remediation, and concluded that the burden of being temporarily relocated for six
-------
                                          29
to seven years7 combined with the uncertainty of achieving the required low residential cleanup
standards would make Alternative 2 unimplementable. Thus, remediation and residential
reoccupation of the building (Alternatives 2 and 3) are not implementable, are potentially
ineffective over the long-term, and would not be acceptable to the community. In contrast,
Alternative 5 affords the highest degree of implementability and, since it includes demolition
and off-site disposal of the building and removal of contaminated soil, provides the highest
degree of certainty that the remediation will be successful.

5.1.1.2. Comment (page 11):  GE provides a risk assessment overview that states "EPA has
conducted a risk assessment that is not based on actual, realistic exposure assumptions and risk
but, instead, has predicated its decisions on implausible exposure scenarios chosen, it would
appear, for the sole purpose of supporting EPA's pre-ordained remedial preference - demolition
of the factory," and that "EPA has selected a remedy that is first and foremost based on the
Agency's evaluation of potential risks of mercury exposure.

EPA Response: First, as stated in EPA's response to Comment 5.1.1.1. above, and detailed in
response to Comment 5.1.1.4, below, EPA developed appropriate exposure standards. Second,
as explained in EPA's response to Comment 5.1.1.1., EPA has not had a pre-ordained remedy
for the Site. EPA has properly followed the steps required by CERCLA and the NCP to reach
a Proposed Plan. Furthermore, as explained in detail in EPA's response to Comment 5.1.1.1.,
risk assessment and future residential land use scenarios art driving remedy selection at this
Superfund site.

5.1.1.3. Comment (page 11):  GE states that, in arriving at its selection and proposal of a
remedy for the Site, EPA "rush[ed] to a judgement that has been unduly influenced by
community pressure."
       7 FFS time estimate for Remedial Alternative 1, page 126, of 52 months in addition to
21 months of temporary relocation prior to ROD finalization (not including time required to
negotiate performance of the remedy with PRPs).
-------
                                           30
EPA Response: EPA's decision to act promptly in arriving at a decision for the Site was based
primarily on three concerns. First, EPA was and remains concerned that the levels of mercury
in this building pose a significant health threat to inhabitants of the building as well as the
surrounding community in the event of a "worst case scenario" fire. Second, EPA is concerned
with the impacts that dissociation and temporary relocation have had on the prior Site
residents, which will continue until, at a minimum, the temporary relocation ends. Third,
based on EPA's experience at other sites, EPA knows t'>.at temporary relocation programs are
potentially very costly. The longer the time to arrive at a decision, the longer and therefore the
more costly the temporary relocation.

Of the 33 comments received by EPA, 30 expressed support for the proposed remedial
alternative. EPA only received two responses entirely opposed to the proposed remedial
alternative, and both responses called for remediation of the building for future
industrial/commercial end use, no soil remediation, and for EPA not to provide permanent
relocation to the dissociated former building residents.  EPA also received one response which
voiced support for permanent relocation of the dissociated former residents, but called for
remediation of the building for future industrial/commercial end use.

5.1.1.4.   Comment (page 12): GE stated that "EPA relies on the Risk Assessment as the basis
for rejecting other viable alternatives, including remediation of the [buildings] to current
industrial standards."

EPA Response: GE is incorrect if it means by this comment that the Risk Assessment formed
the only or primary basis for rejecting other alternatives at the Site. It is not only the Risk
Assessment which drove EPA to select building demolition, but the reasonably anticipated
residential end use of the property which primarily drives the selection along with other
considerations required by CERCLA and the NCP.  As discussed in EPA's response to
comment 5.1.1,1. above, EPA followed the provisions specified by Section 300.430 of the NCP
-------
                                           31
in arriving at its selected alternative.  Consideration of the Risk Assessment was only one
portion of EPA's overall evaluation of the alternatives which were developed.

5.1.1.5. Comment (pages 12): GE states that "the risk assessment is fundamentally flawed"
and that "EPA instead should have looked to existing exposure standards and guidance to derive
an appropriate mercury level." GE continues, stating that the risk assessment failed to utilize
existing occupational exposure standards "developed by agencies w':ose mission it is to put forth
exposure standards assuring the safety of workers..." and that EPA offered "no sound reason
why these preexisting standards are not appropriate"* for the Site.  GE argues that therefore the
risk assessment "cannot be used to support EPA's preferred remedial alternative" for the Site.

EPA Response: This comment suggests that EPA should depart from its longstanding
environmental risk assessment principles and instead adopt risk assessment methodologies and
policies intended for an industrial/commercial occupational environment. The existing
occupational exposure standards referred to by GE on pages 19 to 26 of its comments include
standards promulgated by OSHA, NIOSH, ACGIH, the World Health Organization, and 16
countries other than the United States. These standards apply to environments where:  mercury
is widelv used; the knowingly exposed population is cognizant of the hazards of such exposure;
the population is trained in the use of personal protective devices to protect itself in the event of
exceedances of the standards; the population is trained to control such exceedances; the
population has access to biological/medical monitoring programs. Such populations are
therefore afforded a lesser level of protection under these standards as compared to analogous
environmental standards. These occupational standards are not appropriate for environmental
risk  assessment, and are therefore not appropriate where the type of future
industrial/commercial operations, and attendant protective contingency measures, would be
unknown.

The prominent features that distinguish occupational from environmental standards are the
populations at risk and the level of protectiveness afforded to those populations. The population
-------
                                            32
in an occupational setting is somewhat self-selected in that they likely have no predisposing
conditions that would result in heightened sensitivity to the agent of concern. This phenomena
LS commonly referred to as the "healthy worker effect."  Regarding level of protectiveness, there
are two considerations. First, workers covered under OSHA standards are afforded various
ancillary protective measures which typically include Right-to-Know regulations, access to and
training in the use of personal protective devices, and biological/medical monitoring programs.
The second issue relates to the margin of safety employed in the development of
occupational/environmental standards. Specifically, Section G (b) (5) of OSHA (1970) states:
"The secretary, in  promulgating standards dealing with toxic materials or harmful physical
agents under this subsection, shall set the standard which most adequately assures, to the extent
feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer material
impairment of health or functional capacity even if such employee has regular exposure to the
hazard (emphasis added)." Environmental standards have a different purpose.

Clearly, there are different yardsticks for establishing acceptable exposure limits under
occupational and environmental conditions. In performing the risk assessment under CERCLA
for the Grand Street site, an industrial/commercial future land-use was considered plausible and
therefore included. However, since it would be beyond the scope of the Superfund program to
dictate the specific commercial usage of the Site (with the attendant occupational .• .ety
provisions), an occupational cleanup goal was derived that was consistent with risk assessment
methodologies for protecting the general public (under modified worker exposure assumptions),
including sensitive sub-populations, rather than one intended for a self-selected population that
tacitly accepts the  hazards associated with a particular occupation.  The risk assessment
methodology employed for the Grand Street followed strictly adhered to NCP Section
300.430(d), and applicable EPA risk assessment guidance documents (Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund,  1989, EPA/540/1-89/002 and Draft Exposure Factors Handbook, EPA/600/P-
95/OOBA, 1995) which direct that the risk assessment be an analysis of potential adverse health
effects (current or future) caused by hazardous substances released from the site in the absenceof
any actions or controls to mitigate these releases. To conduct the risk assessment and generate a
-------
                                          33
site-specific industrial/commercial risk-based cleanup goal assuming (as OSHA does) that all
appropriate occupational safety provisions would be in place, would be contrary to the
aforementioned statutory requirements and regulatory guidance.

5.1.1.6. Comment (pages 14-15): GE states that "EPA's risk assessment and selected remedial
alternative are fundamentally flawed and overly conservative."  GE further states that EPA's
proposed industrial/commercial cleanup goal "is based on bad science," contending that the
EPA "employed an unusual and unnecessarily convoluted process that started with exposure
levels for the entire population, including sensitive subgroups, and reverse-engineered that
standard to derive an impractical workplace exposure number." According to GE, "this is an
unconventional approach that was compounded by errors and implausible assumptions, all of
which led to an unrealistic and unnecessarily strict standard."

EPA Response: These statements are incorrect. The risk assessment was neither unusual nor
unnecessarily convoluted. The process followed all the standard applicable EPA guidance for
conducting risk assessments under CERCLA. GE offers no specific instances where procedures
were utilized that did not conform with applicable EPA guidance. The issue of performing a
toxicity assessment that overtly considers sensitive populations has been addressed by EPA
above in its response to comment 5.1.1.5.  To reiterate: the risk assessment was performed to
assess hazards in a generic workplace that would be populated by members of the public at
large, rather than inappropriately assuming a self-selected worker population specifically
tailored to a facility utilizing mercury as a regular part of its processing. The "reverse
engineering" of the derived standard is common practice and its methods are described in detail
in "Risk Assessment  Guidance for Superfund, Part B: Development of Risk-Based Remediation
Goals." EPA would like to clarify that it is not a "standard" that is reverse engineered; rather, it
is an acceptable risk level that is back-calculated to generate a risk-based preliminary remediation
goal. Contrary to its statement, GE offers no evidence of errors made in the risk assessment.
-------
                                           34
Regarding its assertion that EPA used "implausible assumptions," GE refers specifically to the
lack of documentation supporting EPA's use of an inhalation rate of 20 m3 per workday in the
risk assessment, which differs from the 10 m3 per workday value employed by OSHA and
ACGIH. Regarding the documentation issue, the risk assessment (Page 3-14) cites two
references (Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: "Standard Default
Exposure Factors, "1991; and Draft Exposure Factors Handbook, 1995) as the basis for
residential and occupational inhalation rates. The Standard Default Exposure Factors guidance
(OSWER Directive 9285.6-03, March 25, 1991) which was developed by an inter-agency group
of risk assessment experts, recommends an ii.lialation rate of 20 mj per workday as a reasonable
maximum estimate (as per Risk Assessment  Guidance for Superfund, 1989) given consideration
to various (i.e., light, moderate and heavy) weighted work activities.  The use of a reasonable
maximum estimate for workday inhalation rate accounts for the difference between the value o
20 m3 used in the risk assessment and the value of 10 m3 employed by OSHA and ACGIH. It
should also be noted that the risk assessment included a "central tendency" workday inhalation
rate of 13.3 m3, which is only slightly greater than the value recommended by GE.
5.1.1.7. Comment (page 1£): GE states that "EPA's proposed remedy is ... suspect because
                         Vi
[EPA] fails to even consider future end use of the [Site] for industrial purposes, a purpose for
which the [Site] remains well-suited today," and "EPA assumes, rather , Uan demonstrates, that
remediation to industrial standards is infeasible."

EPA Response:  As stated previously in EPA response to comment 5.1.1.1., EPA did consider
and evaluate a remedial alternative under which the Site would be remediated to
industrial/commercial end use.  As also discussed above, future industrial/commercial use of the
Site is unlikely considering the present and future R-2 Residence District (Stabilization) zoning
at and  around the Site, and the fact that the City of Hoboken is not amenable to changing that
zoning for industrial/commercial use. EPA has concluded that the reasonable anticipated future
use of the Grand Street Site is residential. This conclusion is based on several factors. First and
foremost is a review of current land use trends in Hoboken. In recent years, Hoboken's
-------
                                           35
residential real estate market has thrived. See the land use discussion in EPA's response to
Comment 5.1.1.1.

Another important consideration is the input of the local community.  City officials and
community members have repeatedly made the case to EPA that Hoboken is  undergoing a
significant transformation, with properties converting from industrial and commercial
operations to residences. In a May 22, 1997 resolution, the City Council and the Mayor of
Hoboken recognized that, as of December, 1995, the Grand Street building was a "residential
building housing 17 families."  The resolutic" asked EPA to "expediently resolve the issue of
permanent relocation of tenants and call for the demolition or removal of 722 Grand Street and
the environmental restoration of its land."

Finally, the zoning of the Grand Street Site supports residential use.  The current zoning for the
Site is "R-2 Residence District (Stabilization)." A March 2, 1993 Resolution from the Planning
Board of the City of Hoboken states that "one of the purposes of the R-2 District under Section
196-15 of the Zoning Ordinance is to facilitate conversion of non-residential to residential
space." This conclusion is consistent with repeated communications EPA has received from the
City of Hoboken, in which the City has indicated that it is not amenable to re-zoning the Site
from its present R-2 District Designation.1

5.1.1.8.  Comment (page 18, and page 16, footnote 7): GE states that "the RfC is a general
population exposure standard that should not be used as the basis for setting an occupational
exposure level." GE also states that "EPA's starting point, the RfC for mercury, is itself based
on the assumption that exposure to mercury at an air concentration of 25^g/m3 is associated
with adverse health effects.  In fact, 25Atg/m3 is itself a protective occupational exposure level
for mercury." GE quotes OSWER Directive 9285.7-16 as obligating EPA to provide a written
       8 GE indicated in the past to EPA that it intended to meet with Hoboken officials to
discuss future land use and zoning of the Site. EPA is unaware that such a meeting took place
and GE has not submitted any information regarding the results of such a meeting to EPA.
-------
                                           36
explanation for the value ultimately selected, when that toxicological value is questioned in a
comment to a proposed plan.

EPA Response: EPA's response to this comment is explained in detail in EPA's response to
comments  5.1.1.4. and 5.1.1.5. above. EPA also explains its selection of the toxicity factor (i.e.,
RfC) for elemental mercury vapor for the purposes of the site-specific risk assessment in the risk
assessment itself, which is part of the administrative record for the Site. Additionally, as
documented in Attachment 1, EPA is justified in selecting the Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) verified RfC for mercury vapor of 0 3 Mg/m3, instead of selecting the value of 25
Mg/m3 developed by ACGIH, which is proposed by GE as the applicable toxicity value for the
Site. Interestingly, GE concedes an observation made by ACGIH that suggested adverse effects
at occupational exposure levels below the previous TLV of 50 ^zg/m3.  In fact, most of these
human occupational inhalation studies (see appendix) referenced by ACGIH, form the basis of
EPA's estimated Lowest-Observed-Adverse-Effects Level (LOAEL) of 25 //g/m3. Obviously,
ACGIH stopped there and based on its review of the scientific literature concluded that "to
protect the CNS and kidneys, a TLV-TWA of 25 Mg/m3 is recommended. In keeping with
EPA's regulatory principal of providing an adequate margin of safety in assessing toxicity, when
RfC's are derived from studies reporting LOAELs rather than No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-
Levels (NOAELs), a safety factor of ten is employed.  An additional safety factor of three was
employed to  account for the incomplete database, particularly developmental and reproductive
studies. A detailed description of this calculation can be found at Attachment 1.
5.1.1.9. Comment (page 20): GE States that the OSHA "PEL of 100 ^g/m3 remains in effect
as the only enforceable mercury exposure standard for industrial settings in this country."
Further, GE claims that "EPA recognizes the OSHA PEL as an ARAR for the Factory."

EPA Response: GE fails to properly designate this OSHA PEL value as a "Ceiling" (i.e., not to
be exceeded) rather than a time-weighted average. It is possible for the "ceiling" exposure limit
for a particular chemical to be many times higher than its respective time-weighted average
-------
                                          37
exposure limit.  For instance, the PEL (time-weighted average) for organo-mercury compounds
is 10/zg/m3 while the corresponding "ceiling" value is 40/zg/m3.

With regard to OSHA PELs as ARARS for the Site, as indicated in page 48 of the FFS, OSHA
is considered by U.S. EPA to be a "non-environmental law," which is not an ARAR.

5.1.1.10. Comment (page 21):  GE cites ACGIH as stating that there is "a threshold for
preclinical changes of CNS and kidney effects at 50 ^ig Hg/g creatinine." GE then indicates that
"this concentration corresponds roughly to a concentration of 100 //g Hg/liter of urine."

EPA Response: GE's conversion of /zg Hg/g creatinine to /ig Hg/liter of urine appears a bit
overstated. GE assumes that 50 (j.% Hg/g creatinine in urine corresponds roughly to  a
concentration of 100 /^g Hg/liter of urine. The Merck Manual cites urinary creatinine
elimination in a normal (70 kg) adult as 1.05 -1.75 grams per day. The same reference cites
urinary volume in a normal adult as .7 - 2 liters per day. Based on these ranges, the relationship
between a microgram of Hg/g creatinine and a microgram of Hg/liter urine can vary
significantly. For example, 50 /zg Hg/g creatinine in urine corresponds to a range of 25 to
125/2g Hg/liter of urine. While GE's estimate falls within this range, it has provided  a skewed
rather than central estimate of daily urin   y mercury elimination. Therefore, this threshold of
preclinical changes may be occurring at levels up to four times lower than GE indicates.

5.1.1.11. Comment (page 23): GE repeatedly makes reference to the fact that ACGIH and
OSHA standards for airborne mercury exposure carry a "skin" notation. GE states "[bjecause
there would be no opportunity for dermal contact with mercury at the factory if it was
appropriately remediated, this would yield an additional margin of safety compared  to a
workplace where the air level met the ACGIH TLV but additional skin contact (leading to a
higher systemic dose) was possible."
-------
                                           38
EPA Response:  The possibility for percutaneous absorption of mercury occurring is not just
from direct contact with liquid elemental mercury.  Because GE has indicated elsewhere in its
comments that "appropriate remediation" of the building would include achieving compliance
with existing mercury vapor exposure standards as high as 25/zg/m3 (ACGIH) or 100/^g/m3
(OSHA), workers could continue to be exposed to mercury vapors in an industrial/commercial
use scenario. GE has provided an incomplete representation of the ACGIH (or
OSHA/NIOSH) "skin" notation.  ACGIH states that the "skin" notation refers to the potential
contribution to the overall exposure by the cutaneous route including mucous membranes and
eye, either by airborne or direct contact wl.'i the substance. In fact, the percutaneous
absorption of elemental mercury vapor has been experimentally determined.  Hursh et al.
(1989), as reviewed in "Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Application" (EPA/600/8-
91/01 IB, January 1992), exposed the forearms of five human volunteers to mercury vapor. The
rate of uptake by the skin was estimated to be 2.6% of the rate of rptake by the respiratory
tract.

5.1.1.12. Comment (page 28): GE states that, "regarding [the] technical infeasibility [of
remediating the Site for industrial/commercial use GE] has considerable experience and success
in remediating former industrial facilities to current industrial standards..."

EPA Response:  As previously stated above in EPA's response to comment 5.1.1.1., EPA does
not dispute it is potentially feasible to remediate the buildings at the Site for
industrial/commercial use. Additionally, although GE may indeed have considerable
experience in this area, the reasonably anticipated future residential use of the Site precludes
remediation of the Site for industrial/commercial use.

GE states in its comments that the Cuyahoga plant is similar in structure to the Grand Street
Site, being constructed of brick exterior, concrete foundation and wooden interior structural
components.  GE claims to have had success in remediating this building to below the  ACGIH
standard of ZS^g/m3, primarily via encapsulation. On February 6, 1997, EPA visited GE's
-------
                                           39
Cuyahoga, OH, facility to discuss GE's remediation of this very facility, among others. At the
time of the EPA visit, GE could not provide records documenting its claim that the building
satisfied ACGIH standards, nor did it utilize any mercury vapor monitoring device to
document that mercury vapors levels were below the 3,ug/m3 level, that GE indicated they
were. No data have been provided to EPA in support of these comments, nor has such data
ever been provided to EPA, demonstrating that GE was capable of successfully remediating the
building to satisfy any level of worker safety.   In any event, these claims of remedial expertise
and capability remain overshadowed by the zoning issues which must be considered in the
CERCLA remedy selection process.

5.1.1.13. Comment (page 31): GE states that, in light of GE's ability to achieve
industrial/commercial remediation goals, "remediation to industrial/commercial standards is
the most cost-effective option that assures protection of human health and the environment, and
this ... should ... be selected by EPA as the appropriate remedy for the [buildings at the Site]."

EPA Response: See EPA's response to comment 5.1.1.1 for a discussion of land use and why
current  and future land use considerations make an alternative which assumes industrial use of
the Site  unimplementable. A discussion of cost-effectiveness in the remedy selection process is
presented below.

Costvffectiveness is determined by evaluating long-term effectiveness and permanence,
reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment, and short-term effectiveness in
order to determine overall effectiveness. Overall effectiveness is then compared to cost to
ensure that the remedy is cost-effective. A remedy is considered cost-effective if its cost are
proportional to its overall effectiveness. While all of the remedial alternatives evaluated by
EPA, with the exception of Alternative 1 - No Action, offer overall protection to human health
and the  environment and achieve ARARs, they do so to varying degrees in terms of cost-
effectiveness. The differences,  including balances and trade-offs, are discussed below:
-------
                                            40
Alternative 2 is the least expensive of the four protective alternatives at $9.821,000. While
theoretically possible to implement, this remedial alternative does not provide assurances that it
will be effective over the long term. Complications with achieving extremely low remedial
action goals might necessitate revisiting the remedy and selection of a different remedy for the
Site (including additional relocation), at increased cost. Additionally, complications with
achieving remedial action goals could delay remedy completion, which would increase costs for
remediation and temporary relocation activities.

Alternative 3 has a present worth cost  of $13,?Q6,000.  This alternative presents many of the same
concerns as Alternative 2.  For instance, complications with achieving extremely low remedial
action goals might necessitate revisiting the remedy and selection of a different remedy for the Ski
(including additional relocation), at increased cost.

Alternative 4 has a present worth cost  of $12,807,000.  This alternative presents all of the same
concerns as Alternative 2 and 3, though to a lesser degree since the remedial action goals are less
srtingent and therefore more likely to  be achieved.  Irrespective of cost, however are land use
considerations, which  precede industrial/commercial remediation of the buildings in light of
present zoning and population trends in the City of Hoboken.

Alternative 5 has the highest present worth cost of the four alternatives at $13,861,000. Although
highest in cost, it is not significantly higher than Alternatives 3 or 4. However, this alternative
presents none of the uncertainties inherent in Alternatives 2, 3  or 4, and ensures that remedial
action goals will be achieved.

EPA has therefore determined the selected remedy to be cost-effective because it provides the
greatest overall long-term and short-term effectiveness in proportion to its present worth cost.
-------
                                           41
5.1.1.14, Comment (page 33):  GE states that "at the end of renovation to
commercial/industrial standards, there will be left standing a usable structure. This is consistent
with EPA's current Brownfields initiatives to return Superfund sites to productive industrial use."

EPA Response:  EPA strongly disagrees with this comment, as GE has misinterpreted EPA's
Brownfields program. EPA's Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative is designed to
empower States,  communities, and other stakeholders in economic redevelopment to work
together in a timely manner to assess, safely clean up, and sustainably reuse Brownfields.  EPA
defines Brownfields as abandoned, idle, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities that
have actual or perceived contamination and an active potential for redevelopment or reuse.  In
accordance with  this Initiative, EPA has undertaken numerous efforts including:

       -providing grants for Brownfields pilot projects;
       -building  partnerships and outreach among federal agencies, states, municipalities and
       communities; and
       -fostering local job development and training initiatives.

Although, as  GE acknowledges, EPA's Brownfields Initiative excludes Superfund National
Priorities List sites, EPA is committed to promote efforts to returning all sites, both NPL and
non-NPL to beneficial, productive uses, wherever practicable. The beneficial, productive use of a
Site, both under  the Brownfields concept or the Superfund program is not, as GE states, expressly
industrial or commercial.  Rather, it can also be residential or recreational depending on those
factors relating to land use as describe in EPA's OSWER Directive No. 9355.7-04 - "Land Use in
the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process" which is applicable for both NPL cleanups and for the
Brownfields program.

5.1.1.15. Comment (page 34): GE states that EPA inappropriately assumed that "the Factory is
appropriate for residential use and has conducted a risk assessment to fit that assumption." GE
further states that EPA was unjustified in following that approach "because it was only through
-------
                                            42
an unlawful process that this longstanding industrial property was converted for residential use in
the first place."

EPA Response:  First, it must be noted that the Site is no longer a factory.  Second, EPA
considered and evaluated industrial/commercial future uses of the property - EPA did not just
look at future residential uses of the property. Third, as explained in response to comment
5.1.1.1, above, the Risk Assessment process did not proceed with a pre-ordained remedy in mind,
Fourth, GE indicates that the conversion of the building to residential use was unlawful because
ECRA was not complied with. While it is true that the Negative Declaration issued by the
NJDEP was later rescinded, the recision letter does not specifically state that ECRA was not
complied with. In fact, that is the subject  of the lawsuit now pending between GE and various
others, and a determination has not yet been made by the courts.  It would be premature for EPA
to make the assumption that the conversion was unlawful.  Further, even if the conversion was
unlawful, that does not affect the future land use of the Site, which is what EPA must consider in
formulating its remedy.  Finally, the legality or illegality of the property transfer has no bearing
on the implementation of the remedy.

5.1.1.16. Comment (page 34, footnote 12):  GE claims that EPA "has devised an unreasonably
low cleanup goal of O.C^Q/m3 for children for the purposes of the risk assessment which is
inconsistent with previous residential cleanup levels advocated by the Agency," and that EPA
"fails to explain its rationale for rejecting its earlier cleanup goal of O.Sl^g/m3 as selected in the
Technical Engineering Evaluation for Mercury remediation at the Grand Street Site, and the
Agency's own Risk Based Concentration  Table..."
EPA Response: The residential cleanup goal of 0.31 ^g/rn3 that was included in the Technical
Engineering Evaluation for Mercury Remediation at the Grand Street Site (Prepared by
Levine-Fricke-Recon) utilized the EPA Region ID risk-based concentration (RBC) table.  The
Technical Engineering Evaluation document was prepared before the risk assessment was
finalized in order to expedite the remedial process at the Site.
-------
                                            43
It should be noted that EPA Region HI clearly states in the introduction to its risk-based table that
the RBC table does not constitute regulation or guidance, and should not be viewed as a substitute
for a site-specific risk assessment. The introduction to the RBC table further states "the table
should generally not be used to set clean-up or no-action levels at CERCLA sites." Accordingly,
reliance on EPA Region Hi's risk-based concentrations as a site-specific clean-up goal is
inappropriate during final remedy selection.

It is also worth noting that there is a difference in the approach that the risk assessment employs
and the assumptions used in the EPA Region IQ RBC table. EPA Region HI RBC table calculates
an age-adjusted inhalation  factor for residential exposure (total duration of 30 years) by combining
the childhood (duration of 6 years) and adulthood exposure (duration of 24 years). Therefore, the
cleanup goal of 0.31 /zg/m3 obtained from the EPA Region III table applies to residential exposure
(child and adult exposure combined) for a total duration of 30 years. The EPA Region El table
does not calculate individual RBCs for children and adults separately.  The risk assessment for the
Grand Street Site calculated cleanup goals separately for child and adult residents (based on 6 and
30 years of exposure duration) which realistically reflects the most recently exposed populations
at the site.  The risk assessment was justified in doing that under the residential scenario
considering that protecting the health of children is a top priority for EPA. Therefore, while the
Region HI table is useful as a screening tool, it is not to be used in place of a site-specific risk
assessment.

EPA Administrator Carol Browner has made it a priority to consider children's health risks for
all of the risk assessments, risk characterizations, and environmental and public health standards
that we set for the nation. This position is elaborated in a memo from Administrator Browner
(10/20/95) titled "New Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children." The memo states "It is
the policy of the U.S. EPA to consider the risks to infants and children consistently and explicitly
as part of risk assessments generated during its decision making process, including the setting of
standards to protect public health and the environment." In explaining the need to perform
separate risk assessments for children, the memo states "there are often age related differences in
-------
                                            44




types and levels of exposure	children also breathe more rapidly than adults and can inhale more4



an air pollutant per pound of body weight than adults"







5.1.1.17. Comment (page 35): GE states that "[although the City of Hoboken did grant a Site



plan approval for use of the [Site] as residential property - in effect, a variance from the



preexisting [sic] industrial use zoning - that approval was predicated  on the incorrect premise th



the property was in compliance with all applicable environmental laws. Failure to satisfy a pre-



condition to Site plan approval such as compliance with state environmental laws warrants a



nullification of the Site plan approval," which GE claims (on page 37) "causes the property to



revert to its pre-existing industrial use."







EPA Response:  To adequately respond to this comment, Corporation Counsel for the City of



Hoboken was contacted to discuss the claim raised by GE.  He indicated that revocation of the



negative declaration approval would not have the effect of reverting the zoning portion of theSiti



plan, and that the zoning for the property would remain R-2, Residence District (Stabilization).



Based upon correspondence received from the Corporation Counsel, EPA's understanding of the



zoning matters at the Site is as follows. Prior to 1979, the area around the Site was zoned M-l,



Manufacturing.  In 1979 the Hoboken Zoning Ordinance was classified R-2, which encouraged



residential  co  "ersion of non-residential properties. Although the R-2 classification would have



allowed the Site  property owner to continue with the manufacture of tools and dies under a



variance to the R-2 zoning (or other approval) because the manufacturing operations predated the



zoning classification, the property owner never applied for such a variance or other approval. In



1993, when the property was sold, because no variance or other approval had been applied for or



obtained, the zoning variance remained R-2 when the property was sold for residential



development. The new property owners applied for and obtained a "bulk" variance from the R-2



classification in order to construct artist studios alongside the residences at the property. A



"bulk" variance was given (as opposed to  a "use" variance) for the Site because the  use of the Site



as residences and artist studios was in conformance with the R-2 District.  Even if it could be



shown that a precondition to site plan approval (such as compliance with State environmental
-------
                                            45
laws) had not been fulfilled, there is nevertheless no "automatic" nullification of the site plan.
However, even if arguendo the site plan was ultimately nullified, the zoning would, if anything,
revert to R-2 (without the "bulk" variance for artist studios), not to the R-2 variance (which never
existed) for industrial use as indicated by GE.

5.1.1.18. Comment (page 37): GE states that "EPA inappropriately relied on residential
exposure assumptions in the first instance, rejecting more realistic and  more relevant worker
exposure scenarios. Even if it were appropriate to rely on residential exposure assumptions, here
too EPA has erred by  overestimating soil ingestion risks." GE cites a single study (Stanek, 1992)
to argue a mean soil ingestion rate in children of 50 mg/day.

EPA Response:  EPA has not overestimated soil ingestion risks.  EPA has assumed that in time
the parking lot might degrade and contaminated soils might be exposed.  Consistent with the
appropriate Superfund guidance (Standard Default Exposure Factors, 1991), a childhood soil
ingestion rate of 200 mg was employed as an estimate of the reasonable maximum exposure.
EPA's "Guidance Manual for the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in
Children," (EPA/540/R-93/081PB93/93510, February 1994) cites four tracer studies (Davis, 1991;
Calabrese, 1989; Binder, 1986; and Clausing, 1987) that all report composited mean soil ingestion
rates of greater than 100 mg/day. It should be noted that the Grand Street risk assessrr.  it
included a "central tendency" soil ingestion rate for children of 100 mg/day.

5.1.1.19. Comment (page 38): GE states that "In the risk assessment EPA assumes, for instance,
that 100% of the elemental mercury ingested would be absorbed through the gastrointestinal
tract." GE asserts that a 20% bioavailability factor should be employed, thus reducing the risk
estimate "by a factor of five."

EPA Response: GE is incorrect regarding the oral bioavailability of mercury in the case of soil
ingestion at the Site. Adjusting the bioavailability term to account for the difference in
absorption between the dosing vehicle employed in the critical study (upon which the toxicity
-------
                                             46
value is based) and the medium being assessed (in this case, soil) is scientifically sound and
appropriate when there are sufficient data to support this adjustment. The adjustment that GE
claims should be made  would only be appropriate if it was known with some degree of scientific
certainty that the absorption of mercury in the critical study, which forms the  basis of the RfD,
was 100%. However, a review of the IRIS database indicates that the RfD was based on a weight-
of-evidence of three separate studies. On one of these, the mercury was administered
subcutaneously; the other two employed oral regimens (one administered in feed, the other in
solution by gavage). While it would be reasonable to assume that the subcutaneous dosing route
represents near complete (i.e.,  100%) absorption, the IRIS file contains a footnote indicating poor
(i.e., 7%) absorption from the studies employing the oral route of administration. Given the
variability in absorption in the three studies that form the basis of the RfD, in this case, it would
be inappropriate to adjust the bioavailability factor of soil-borne mercury.

In a footnote to this comment, GE states that EPA faced similar criticism for incorrect
assumptions that lead is readily bioavailable, such that "the Agency has, under criticism, belatedly
revised its lead exposure assumptions." This statement is vague, and, as best can be determined
due to its vagueness, incorrect. EPA utilizes a default estimate of 30% bioavailability for s'oil-
                           ^
borne lead absorption in children, and in keeping with the aforementioned principals would
adjure the term on a site-specific basis based on scientifically sound studies .

5.1.1.20.  Comment (page 39): GE states "studies of adults indicate that mean soil ingestion rates
are considerably lower than the EPA default values and  are on the order of 10 mg/day." The
citation for this statement is Calabrese, 1996.

EPA Response: EPA questions the appropriateness of this statement.  First, it states that it has
been "accepted" for publication, yet has not actually been published, making review difficult.
Second, the working title of this paper is "Soil ingestion rates for children residing  on Superfund
sites (emphasis added)," not adults.  The soil ingestion rate of 50 mg/day,  utilized  by EPA in the
worker soil exposure scenario in the Risk Assessment, cited in Superfund's "Standard Default
-------
                                           47
Exposure Factors, 1991" has, as its basis, a study conducted by Calabrese, 1990. The Calabrese,
1990 study specifically addresses soil ingestion rates in adults.

5.1.2. Comments Pertaining to EPA's Estimated Remedial Costs

5.1.2.1. Comment (page 39): GE states, as pertains to proposed permanent relocation, that
"EPA's costs for its preferred remedial alternative are inflated and unsupported in the
administrative record" given EPA's assertion that EPA-conducted property appraisals are
privileged. GE additionally states that "[a]ccordingly, EPA has failed to comply with the
administrative record requirements of CERCLA and the NCP and has frustrated the ability of
[GE] and other interested parties to comment meaningfully in these cost estimates." Based on
independent appraisals of the property conducted at the direction of GE, GE suggests a property
acquisition value of "approximately $6.2 million to $6.5 million."

EPA Response: EPA agrees that CERCLA requires EPA to provide a meaningful opportunity
to comment and provide information regarding the Proposed Plan.  42 U.S.C. Section
9613{k)(2)(B)(ii), 40 C.F.R. Section 300.430(^(2).  However, the NCP also states that "[pjrivileged
                          4&-
documents shall not be included in the record file..." 40 C.F.R. Section 300.810(c).  The NCP
directs that these documents shall be placed in the confidential portion of the administrative
record, and that is what occurred here. 40 C.F.R. Section 300.810(d).

EPA provided summaries of the appraisal estimates in the publicly available portion of the
administrative record, to which GE and other interested parties have full access.  These appraisal
summaries contain estimated values for each of the units, which are the primary bases for the cost
estimate for property acquisition and therefore permanent relocation.  When coupled with the
explanations for cost development in the FFS, EPA did provide access to much of the information
GE claims it required to conduct a "meaningful" review.
-------
                                            48
GE also conducted independent appraisals of the property at 722-732 Grand Street, which EPA
has reviewed. These appraisals appear to be inconsistent with fair market property values.
Though EPA will not exhaustively discuss the appraisals in this document, EPA will take the
opportunity to point out several inconsistencies with the appraisals in assessing the actual value of
the property. GE's appraisers never entered the buildings and are not personally aware of the
extent of renovation or size of the individual units; all information provided to the appraisers
regarding the general condition, level of finish and quantity and quality of the fixtures was
provided by representatives of GE. As stated in the appraisal itself, this appraisal process
represented a departure from Rule 1 of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices,
The appraisers also neglected to calculate the value of the common areas of the property,
including the foundation and interior support  walls, shared plumbing and  electrical fixtures, and
the land on which the buildings reside, which value constitutes a significant portion of the cost
estimate. Further,  the appraisers do not calculate the value of the townhouse at 720 Grand Street,
though GE does provide an assumed value for the townhouse in the body  of its comments.

By taking the upper bound limits of the appraisals (since the appraisers never entered the
property), and the townhouse estimate collectively, and using the value from EPA's FFS for the
value  of the common areas of the buildings EPA believes GE's estimated cost for property
acquisition to be approximately $7.9 million.  This value, though it significantly underestimates
property acquisition costs, is well within EPA's cost estimation requirements for remedial
alternative development as specified in EPA's "Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations
and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA (EPA540/G-89/004). When added to the cost of other
remedial components, the differences are even less significant.

5.1.2.2.  Comment (page 40):  GE states "EPA's estimate of the value of the [condominium]
units  is more than two times the value of the units as evaluated by the owners themselves in
1995," as reflected in a 1995 insurance policy in the amount of $3,990,000.
-------
                                           49
EPA Response: EPA does not agree with GE's claim that insurance values are appropriate
indices of fair market real estate values. Futhermore, EPA wishes to point out that insurance
coverage in the amount of $3,990,000 was obtained for the building itself, and is not reflective of
any insurance policies that may have been held concurrently by the owners of the individual
condominium units, or of the value of the associated land. Additionally, the amount of insurance
carried by the owners is irrelevant as to the determination of fair market value.  The URA
requires that EPA provide a displaced person with just compensation for his/her property, which
must not be less than EPA's approved appraisal of fair market value of the property to be
acquired.

5.I.J.3. Comment (page 41):  GE states, in reference to EPA's denial of EPA-conducted
appraisals as enforcement sensitive and/or interagency memoranda when requested by GE under
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), that EPA has hidden "behind the cloak of these [FOIA]
exemptions to exclude material information from the administrative record."

EPA Response: EPA maintains that it has the right to withhold enforcement sensitive
information pursuant to Sections 5 and 7 of the FOIA. 5 U.S.C. Sections 552(b)(5), 7(A), 7(C).
EPA further states that the documents which were withheld in response to  GE's FOIA request
are the subject of a FOIA appeal, which is currently pending before EPA Headquarters. GE can
expect a response to its FOIA appeal from EPA Headquarters. Finally, as is clearly demonstrated
above, in EPA response to comment 5.1.2.1., EPA has maintained these documents in the
confidential portion of the administrative record, and has also provided substantive summaries of
the documents GE requested in the public repository for the Site in Hoboken.

5.1.2.4. Comment (page 42):  GE states that "EPA's [permanent relocation] cost estimate grossly
overstates the actual out-of-pocket expenses of the owners."

EPA Response: EPA did not consider out-of-pocket expenses in the context of permanent
relocation. Permanent relocation will be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the
-------
                                           50
Uniform Relocation and Real Properties Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URA) as amended, 42
U.S.C. § 4601 £i seq.. and Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations at 49 CJF.R. Section
49.  The URA requires that EPA provide a displaced person with just compensation for his/her
property, which must not be less than EPA's approved appraisal of fair market value of the
property to be acquired. 42 U.S.C. Section 4651.

The only context in which EPA looked to the out-of-pocket expenses of the owners of the Grandl
Street property is to estimate the cost to reconstruct unit interiors in alternative two. These
estimates are well documented in the FFS.

5.1.2.5. Comment (page 43): GE states that "EPA has apparently not reduced the cost of
permanent relocation to take into account the amount of insurance coverage available to the
displaced former residents.  Any permanent relocation effort undertaken by EPA is governed by
the [URA] and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations, 44 C.F.R. Part
221."

EPA Response: GE mistakenly represents that EPA permanent relocation actions are governed
by FEMA. In fact, the regulatory provisions of the Department of Transportation, which are
codified at 49 C.F.R. Part 24 et seq. were adopted by EPA pursuant to the requirements of the
URA.  These EPA regulations are located at 40 C.F.R. Section 4.1.  Additionally, EPA notes that]
GE's reference to 44 C.F.R. Section 220.4 on page 43 is particularly inappropriate, not only
because it cites FEMA regulations, but because it cites regulations for temporary relocations, not
permanent relocations, in a section of comments where GE is attempting to use the regulations to
illustrate a point regarding permanent relocations.

Furthermore,  with regard to the comment pertaining to the FEMA requirement that relocatior
benefits be reduced by the amount of available insurance, as explained above, the FEMA
-------
                                          51
regulations cited by GE are inapplicable in this instance. However , the DOT regulations which
do apply 10 EPA permanent relocations, contain a similar provision at

      Section 24.3; No duplication of payments.
      .No person shall receive any payment under this part if that person receives a payment
      under Federal, State, or local law which is determined by the Agency to have the same
      purpose and effect as such payment under this part.

To date, EPA is unaware of any sucn payment being made to the residents, by insurance
companies or otherwise. Therefore, there is currently no reason to reduce the costs of permanent
relocation by any such amount. However, EPA fully intends that the permanent relocation will
be conducted consistent with 49 C.F.R. Part 24 et seq.r as specifically indicated in both the FFS
and the Proposed Plan. Should a reduction be warranted, it will be taken.

5.1.2.6.  Comment (page 43): GE states that EPA "assumes, without explanation, that the
residual value of the land after demolition will be available to [EPA to]  offset response costs."

EPA Response: Under section 104® of CERCLA, EPA may acquire property to conduct a
remedial action only when  the State in which this action is to be taken assures EPA in a contract
or cooperative agreement that it will accept transfer of the property following completion of the
remedial action. EPA is now in the process of finalizing a draft SSC with the NJDEP. EPA
anticipates that under the final terms of the SSC, following property sale, EPA and NJDEP will
be reimbursed based upon the allocation of response costs after deduction of reasonable property
transaction costs. EPA, therefore, will presumably be reimbursed 90 percent of monies remaining
after transaction costs are deducted, with NJDEP receiving the remaining ten percent.

5.1.2.7.  Comment (page 43): GE states that, pursuant to CERCLA § 104 (j) and 42 U.S.C. §
9604(j), "when EPA "takes" [sic] property for remedial action, the State, in this case New Jersey,
must agree to take title to the property following remediation."
-------
                                            52
EPA Response: Correctly quoted, the regulation cited above states, "...the State in which the
interest to be acquired is located assures [EPA] that the State will accept transfer of the interest
following completion of the remedial action". EPA is in the process of negotiating its SSC with
NJDEP and it appears that under the terms of the final SSC, NJDEP will accept title to the
affected property after the remedial action is completed.  Further, EPA anticipates the terms of
the SSC to permit EPA to maintain the property for a period of not more than one year
following remedy completion, during which period the U. S. Government may attempt to sell
the property directly. If the U. S. Government is successful in selling the property, it will
reimburse NJDEP based on its ten percent contribution, after reasonable real estate transaction
costs, thereby obviating the need for NJDEP to take title to the property. After the one year
period, if the property has not ben sold, title will transfer to the  State.

5.1.2.8. Comment (page 44): GE states that "EPA estimates the costs of soil remediation to be
$138,000 if the [property] is remediated to industrial standards and $219,000 if the [property] is
remediated to residential standards."

EPA Response: The actua^values for these cost estimates, detailed in the FFS,  are $131,250 if the
buildings are remediated for either residential or industrial/commercial use (Alternatives 2, 3 and
4), and $213,400 if the buildings on the property are demolished and the property is remediated
and restored to residential use (Alternative 5). EPA did include a figure of $138,000 in the FFS
and Proposed Plan, though this figure also included costs estimated for groundwater sampling.

5.1.2.9. Comment (page 44): GE states that °EPA has relied on insupportable soil ingestion
exposure assumptions that result in the Agency's arbitrary and capricious selection of soil
remediation for the site."

EPA Response: EPA has addressed the issues relating to soil ingestion exposure assumptions in
EPA responses to comments 5.1.1.18. and 5.1.1.20.
-------
                                            53
5.1.2.10. Comment (page 44-45): GE states that "if appropriate worker exposure scenarios are
used, soil remediation of the Site is unnecessary, and...the costs associated with that [soil]
remediation should be deleted" from the cost estimate for alternative four.

EPA Response: EPA agrees. EPA acknowledges that (successful) remediation of the buildings for
industrial/commercial occupation would require environmental restrictions on the deed to the
property indicating that the buildings would be unsuitable for residential use. EPA additionally
acknowledges that a deed restriction is in place tor the asphalt cap covering the subject mercury-
contaminated soil9, and therefore agrees with the comment, in light of the possibility of
institutional controls for mercury which could additionally be placed on the cap.  EPA would
reduce the cost estimate for Alternative 4 by $132,000 to $12,807,000. This change represents a
minor fraction of overall remedial costs, and therefore does not change EPA's decision on it's
preferred alternative.  As described in detail above, EPA's selection of its preferred alternative was
not driven solely by cost.  Rather, it was driven by the analysis required by the NCP, including
land use considerations and concerns related to effective remediation to residential or
industrial/commercial health standards, which considerations prevail in light of this cost change
to remedial alternative four.

5.1.2.11. Comment (page 45): GE states that if EPA "ultimately selects its preferred remedy,"
EPA "must reevaluate the level of soil remediation required,..taking into consideration prevailing
scientific risk assumptions."

EPA Response:  GE makes only two specific comments related to soil ingestion exposure
assumptions.  These comments, relating to soil ingestion rates and bioavailability  of mercury
       9 EPA wishes to note that the Declaration of Environmental Restriction and Grant of
Easement ("DERGE"), instituted at the Site by the NpEP in 1993, called for the installation
and maintenance of an asphalt cap to provide for protection of human health and the
environment against contact with petroleum hydrocarbon contamination. This DERGE,
which allows for penetration of the cap under NJDEP approval, includes no provisions for
mercury contamination, and would have to be modified.
-------
                                            54
which is ingested, have been addressed in EPA's responses above. Based on these responses, EPj\
sees no reason to reevaluate its conclusion regarding the need for soil remediation at the Site.

5.1.2.12. Comment (page 45): GE states that EPA is "arbitrary and capricious" and that "EPA
has significantly overstated the costs of remediating the building [sic] for residential reoccupanc)
where EPA increased the time and cost estimates provided in the March 11, 1997 Technical
Engineering Evaluation Report.  GE additionally contends that- the steps added to the remedial
alternative by EPA were "specifically rejected in the Technical Evaluation Report as being
inappropriate for the very surfaces for whi \ EPA now suggests they should be used." Further,
GE criticized EPA for adding a masonry etching as one of the additional steps, because "nowhert
in the Technical Engineering Report does EPA's contractor identify etching the masonry as a
viable remediation technology."

EPA  Response: As explained in the FFS, EPA was neither arbitrary nor capricious in applying'
this 33 percent increase. The Technical Engineering Evaluation Report identified numerous
available technologies which, in combination, might afford the possibility of achieving the very
low residential reoccupation remediation goal of 0.31^g/mJ. After EPA's Risk Assessment
identified the level of mercury vapor protective of childhood residential exposure to be
0.09/^g/m3, EPA decided to add certain remediation steps identified within the Technical
Engineering Evaluation Report which EPA believes would be necessary to achieve this low
mercury vapor concentration. The steps which EPA  ..dded in its FFS to address this lower
remediation goal include washing contaminated surfaces with detergents and etching masonry
surfaces. The Technical Engineering Evaluation Report did not specifically reject these
technologies.  The Report specifically indicates how the technology would be utilized10 in the
event this technology were employed at the Site. The Report  did not include this step in the
remediation scenario because at the time the report was developed, this step was not seen as a
necessary step in the overall remediation process given the higher remediation goal (0.3lMg/m3)
identified in that Report.  EPA, in addressing a potential remedial effort with an even lower
       10
         Technical Engineering Evaluation Report page 9, bullet 2
-------
                                           55
remediation goal, later discerned that the addition of this step would add an additional level of
surety that the remediation goal could be achieved.

With regard to the second step EPA added, etching of masonry surfaces, EPA's Report identified
that etching, or scarification, of masonry surfaces removes a fraction of the exposed masonry
surface, thereby removing any contamination present in that layer of removed masonry.  The
Report not only refers to this technology as "an acceptable technology for removal of
contamination of both porous and non-porous surfaces," but it actually estimated the cost of its
implementation for a subset of the masonry in the buildings. EPA simply assumed that, in the
interest of thoroughness given such a low remediation goal, that etching might most
appropriately be applied to all masonry surfaces to a greater degree than that estimated in the
Technical Engineering Evaluation Report, and therefore increased the cost estimate accordingly.

5.1.2.13. Comment (page 46): GE states that it "has previously demonstrated that the current
owners of the [Site] and GSAP are liable under CERCLA," and that "it is unlawful and improper
to use [Superf]und monies to pay relocation benefits to  liable parties."

EPA Response:.  EPA has not named the residents or the GSAP as PRPs. However, even if the
  sidents and the GSAP are found to be liable panics under CERCLA, EPA is unaware of any
legal bar preventing EPA from providing them with relocation benefits. GE does not provide
sufficient legal support for its statement that it is "unlawful" for EPA to use Fund monies to pay
relocation benefits to liable parties."

5.1.3.  Cornmenter's Conclusions

5.1.3.1.  Comment (page 47):  GE concludes that "EPA is legally required to undertake a risk
assessment that is grounded in reality."
-------
                                            56
EPA Response: EPA's Risk assessment, as stated clearly in EPA's responses above, is based on
scientifically sound and legally defensible data which is widely available and commonly used in
risk assessments throughout EPA and in the public sector.

5.1.3.2. Comment (page 47):  GE states that "EPA is legally required to...afford interested
parties the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the remedy selection process."

EPA Response: EPA has followed all of its obligations as specified in Section 300.430 of tL
NCP.  EPA has not only allowed interested narties the opportunity to participate in the remedy
selection process, but it has entertained a variety of comments from this commenter prior to the
issuance of the Proposed Plan which have influenced EPA's undertaking of activities at the Site,
including a visit to GE's Cuyahoga Ohio plant. Further, GE has stated publicly to EPA
throughout the course of EPA's involvement at the Site, as it does once again in these comments,
that GE is willing to remediate the buildings at the  Site for industrial/commercial use, and that
demolition of the buildings is unwarranted.  EPA informed GE that land use considerations
would be important considerations in selecting a remedy at the Site.  EPA has not been informed
by GE or the City of Hoboken thatHoboken is amenable to permitting industrial/commercial
use of the Site.  This is  ample evidence that EPA did in fact involve GE from early on in EPA's
involvement at the Site.

5.1.3.3. Comment (page 47): GE concludes that "renovating the [property] to
commercial/industrial  sr-mdards is protective,  is viable, and is cost-effective."

EPA Response: As discussed above, zoning and future land use are inexorably linked when
considering a remedy for the Site.  EPA disagrees that remediation to commercial/industrial
standards is either a viable or cost-effective alternative.
5.1.4.  Comments provided by General Electric at the July 16, 1997, Public Meeting
-------
                                           57
General Electric provided an extensive oral commentary on its position on numerous issues
pertaining to the Site, most which were additionally addressed in GE's September 8, 1997 written
comments on EPA's Proposed Plan.  Insofar as EPA has addressed duplicative comments above,
EPA will not address them again.  One additional comment provided by GE at the public
meeting is addressed below.

5.1.4.1. Comment: GE claimed that tearing the building down could be a significant disruption
to the community. It could require thousands of truck loads of demolition debris driving
through the community on a daily basis for weeks on end.

EPA Response:  EPA realizes that a significant increase in noise levels and  traffic due to
demolition and transportation activities will occur during building demolition. EPA identified
that understanding in both the FFS and the Proposed Plan. EPA will take precautionary
measures to minimize noise levels due to demolition activities to the extent practicable, and will
work with the local community to design transportation flow patterns to minimize traffic
impacts on residential areas. EPA will work with community officials during the development of
the demolition plans to ensure proper precautions are taken to protect the community during
demolition. EPA also will provide advance notice of remedial activities to the local community.
Although these inconveniences are unfortunate, they are realistic,  unavoidable consequences of
Superfund remediation, and pale in comparison with the inconveniences threatening the
community by the building in its present condition.

5.2.    Response to Written Comments raised by Sterns and Weinroth  on behalf of John J.
       Pascale, Sr.
The comments summarized in this section were received from attorneys representing John J.
Pascale, Sr ("the Commenter").  The commenter raises several instances where EPA has
incorrectly stated the facts in the FFS. While EPA agrees that some of the changes do more
accurately represent certain facts, none of these facts in any way influence the remedy selection
process. Because EPA will include this comment letter in the Administrative Record, these
-------
                                          58
comments have been adopted in the formal record for the Site and therefore it is not necessary
that EPA revise the FFS for the Site.  Specific responses to the Commenters' numbered comments
are as follows:
1.      EPA has obtained conflicting information regarding when Cooper-Hewitt 2 ceased
       operations at the Site, which is why EPA says "approximately 1965."
2.      EPA agrees.
3.      EPA agrees.
4.      This comment contradicts a response to a CERCLA information request sent to EPA by
       the commenter.
5.      EPA agrees.
6.      EPA agrees.
7.      Support for the information presented in the "Site History" section of the FFS is in the
       Administrative Record.
8.      EPA does not intend to amend the FFS to include this information since it has no bearing
       on remedy selection. However it is EPA's understanding that the Hudson Regional
       Health  Commission (HRHC) was made aware of mercury remediation activities after a
       concerned resident of the  building informed HRHC of the remediation activities.

The Commenter further states that it "agrees with and hereby adopts the Gei.^ral Electric
Company's technical evaluation of the Focussed Feasibility Study." EPA responses to the
General Electric Company's comments may be found at Section 5.1., above.

Finally, the Commenter raises four questions to which EPA  responds below.

5.2.1.  Comment:  The Commenter  asks if EPA has determined  "whether any employees of the
companies  that previously occupied the site have suffered from mercury inhalation," and asks
EPA to describe efforts it has undertaken to support such a determination.
-------
                                           59
EPA Response: This comment appears to ask two questions. First, it appears to ask if former
employees ever inhaled mercury. Second it appears to ask if such inhalation may have conferred
any adverse health effects upon those employees.

In response to the first question, EPA believes that former employees are likely to have inhaled
mercury vapors. EPA has based this determination upon the following facts:  mercury vapors are
presently widespread throughout the structures; mercury was used from approximately 1910 to
approximately 1965 at the Site; and that employees were present in the buildings from 1910 until
at least 1988.

In response to the second question, EPA has no information on whether there have been any
adverse health effects from inhalation of mercury vapors by prior workers in the building.

5.2.2. Comment: The Commenter asks if EPA believes that the answer to comment 5.2.1 is
"relevant in deciding whether the building should be remediated to industrial  standards."

EPA Response: EPA presumes that this question requires two answers, as it is related to the
apparent two questions in comment 5.2.1 These questions pertain to risk assessment as it is
applied in the CERCLrt. remedy selection process. With regard to the first (inhalation) question,
EPA has considered a worker inhalation risk scenario in its Risk Assessment,  and though this
scenario does not have any bearing on former employees of prior companies working at the Site,
it does consider the effect of those vapors on future industrial/commercial workers exposed to
mercury vapors. Specific information regarding the health of these prior employees would not
affect selection of the remedy.

With regard to the second question, EPA has never reviewed any studies conducted on former
employees who worked at the Site.  As fully  explained throughout Section 5.1. above (including
particularly Section 5.1.1.1.), EPA must consider the nine criteria listed in 40 C.F.R. 300.430 in
determining whether the building should be  remediated for commercial/industrial use.
-------
                                            60
5.2.3.  Comment: The Commenter asks if EPA has "evaluated the effect of GSAP's renovation
efforts on the release of mercury" at the Site, and, if yes, for EPA to explain the results of that
evaluation.

EPA Response: EPA has evaluated the effect of GSAP's renovation on the release of mercury at
the Site and has concluded the following:
     • GSAP renovation activities in one fifth-floor unit in 1995 uncovered the mercury
       contamination problem existing at the Site  /ia removal of flooring;
     • the work leading to the above discovery may have increased mercury vapor concentration!
       in and immediately surrounding the unit where the mercury problem was discovered;
     • EPA has no evidence that the presence of significantly elevated mercury concentrations
       throughout the two buildings  is attributable to GSAP activity, but EPA does believe that
       mercury associated with the activities of prior building owners/occupants between 1910
       and approximately 1965 is the primary source for the mercury currently in the building;
     • EPA has no evidence to suggest that the presence of liquid elemental mercury in thirteen
       of the sixteen planned units in the former manufacturing building is attributable to GSAP
                         ^K.
       activity, but EPA does believe that mercury associated with the activities of prior building
       owners/occupants between A910 and approximately 1965 is the primary source for the
       mercury currently in the  building;
     • wastes generated during attempted remediation of the problem fifth-floor unit are
       presently containerized and stored on-site;
     • construction debris generated by GSAP renovations and disposed of off-site may have been
       contaminated by low levels of mercury; and,
     • the levels of mercury contained in such construction debris were likely not high enough to
       warrant EPA regulation.

5.2.4.  Comment: The Commenter asks if EPA has "taken any groundwater samples at the Site,
and, if yes, to provide the results, or if no,  to state when such sampling will be conducted.
-------
                                          61
EPA Response: EPA has not taken any groundwater samples at the Site. As stated in the FFS
and Proposed Plan, EPA will conduct groundwater sampling concurrent with building
demolition.

5.3.   Response to Written Comments raised by Hellring, Lindeman, Goldstein & Siegal on
      behalf of David Pascale

The comments summarized in this section were received from attorneys representing David
Pascale.

5.3.1. Comment:  The proposed remedy has not been adequately studied or shown necessary or
cost-effective. EPA's Focused Feasibility Study screened out proposals which did not completely
remove bulk elemental mercury at the Site. The  Study should have included those alternatives,
because the Study demonstrates that protective remedies which adequately reduce or control
mercury do exist.

By screening out all remedies which reduce and control mercury contamination, EPA has chosen
from among remedies with relatively high, costs.  However, achieving substantial removal and
encapsulation - techniques the Study acknowledges are  Affective - can likely be achieved at a
fraction of the cost of EPA's proposed remedy. EPA has failed to study other, less costly
techniques which appear to be adequately protective of human health and the environment, meet
all applicable relevant or appropriate requirements, provide long-term effectiveness, may be less
risky than the proposed demolition strategy, can be accomplished more quickly, and will cost
much less. Until EPA performs such a study, it should not proceed with the Proposed Plan.

EPA Response: Section 4.3.2 of the FFS (specifically pages 61 - 63) explains EPA's rationale for
screening out those technologies which encapsulate, rather than remove mercury contamination
in the buildings. However, EPA did retain technologies which reduce  or control or remove
mercury contamination in the buildings
-------
                                            62
5.3.2.  Comment: Demolition involves as much danger to the community as other techniques,
Demolition assures the release of mercury into the environment.  Other techniques (such as
washing and vacuuming) followed by encapsulation would not involve the risk of releasing
mercury and would preserve a historically significant structure.

EPA Response: EPA recognizes that increased mercury vapor and dust generation may occur
during building demolition, and identified that understanding in both the FFS and the Proposed
Plan.  Measures will be taken  to reduce these effects.  For instance, careful attention will be paid
to ensure that workers are fully protected from mercury exposure during the remedial or
demolition effort, that workers are decontaminated before they leave the Site, and that the
building is secured and work space maintained under negative pressure to minimize off-site
releases. EPA will work with community officials during the development of the demolition
plans to ensure proper precautions are taken to protect the community during demolition. The
most highly contaminated fraction of the buildings, the flooring, will be removed from the
building with the walls, windows, and roof intact, thereby minimizing releases to the community
In addition, air quality will be monitored both on and off the Site during remediation activities.
If monitoring reveals air releases in excess of EPA standards, work will be halted and corrective
actions will be taken before resuming work.

While  it is true that other techniques, such as washing or vacuuming, may result in a lower short-
term risk of release during remediation, in the long-term it is much less certain that they will
prove successful as it is unknown whether residual mercury contamination in the building
structure could result  in mercury vapor levels above the cleanup objective of 0.09 ^g/m3-  Since
mercury has adhered to minute pore spaces throughout the building structure, there would
always be the potential for exposure. Further, from a long-term health protective viewpoint,
encapsulation is not an effective remediation technology. As explained in the FFS, EPA agrees
that initial protection may be great with encapsulation.  However, as time wears the encapsulant,
and as  inhabitants of the building potentially penetrate the encapsulant for various reasons, the
-------
                                            63
degree of protectiveness decreases over time, and could actually result in releases of mercury
vapors into the building above health based standards once again.

EPA's selected alternative provides the highest degree of certainty that the remediation will be
successful. There will be no possibility of future residents or workers being exposed to any
residual mercury contamination in the building and soil since all mercury contamination above
health-based levels would be removed.

5.3.3. Comment:  The costs of the pennant* relocation options are greatly out of proportion to
the value of the property, even as improved by the former residents, and so appear to present a
windfall to the prior building residents.

Specifically, the prior building residents invested approximately $175,000 per unit for seven units,
or a total of $2,975,000. They purchased the property for $1,500,000. Thus, their total fair
market value should be approximately $4,475,000. Even with a 10 percent increase for inflation
on improvements, the fair market value would still be less than $4,900,000.

Thus, EPA's total permanent relocation payment (exclusive of temporary relocation and moving
expenses) should be $4,900,000 or less, not tne $9,915,600 EPA included in the Focused Feasibility
Study. EPA bases this estimated payment upon confidential appraisals, which we have not had
the opportunity to see.

EPA Response:  EPA responded to this comment in section 5.1.2., above.  EPA expects that
permanent relocation will be carried out consistent with the URA and its implementing
regulations, which require that all parties from whom property is acquired must be provided just
compensation (which may not be less than the Agency's approved appraisal of the fair market
value of the property).
-------
                                           64


5.3.4. Comment:  EPA must exercise care in selecting the appropriate remedy or seeking to


impose costs on the allegedly responsible parties.  Permanent relocation should not be conducted

at a cost disproportionate to the value of the former dwellings. This appears to provide a


"bonanza" to many prior building residents, who undertook their own investigations prior to


purchase and were  by their own admission aware of the presence of mercury as early as two


occasions in 1993 and another occasion in 1994 before most of the renovation costs were incurred

They could have avoided their alleged capital costs and the need for relocation by exercising due

care.




EPA Response: See EPA response to the comment above.




5.3.5. Comment:  David Pascale is not a PRP under the Comprehensive Environmental

Response and Liability Act (CERCLA). It has been argued that David Pascale had knowledge


that the building had been used for the manufacture of mercury vapor lamps prior to 1955. Even

if this allegation were true, it would not provide David Pascale with knowledge of the presence of

mercury on or about the premises. In any event, knowledge of prior uses of hazardous materials


does not make a person a PRP under the definition of CERCLA.
                         &*



Further, it has been argued that David Pascale is a PRP b' ~ause he was "an owner at the time of

disposal."  That argument fails. Any gradual releases of residual mercury do not  constitute


disposal. The only active disposal undertaken by David Pascale was the decommissioning of an

underground storage tank and disposal of contaminated soil, which were accomplished in

accordance with State requirements. Under those circumstances, David Pascale is not "an owner


at the time of disposal" under CERCLA.




EPA Response: EPA gave David Pascale notice of potential liability under CERCLA  on August


12, 1997. Nevertheless, CERCLA liability is irrelevant in the selection of a remedy under 40

C.F.R. Part 300 et  seq.
-------
                                          65
5.3.6. Comment: Some if not the majority of the partners in the GSAP, as well as the
partnership itself, meet the definition of a PRP under CERCLA.  However, they have not been
named as PRPs by EPA.

EPA Response: As previously stated, the CERCLA liability of persons or entities, including the
GSAP or its partners, is irrelevant in the selection of a remedy under 40 C.F.R. Part 300 et seq.

5.3.7. Comment: The Focused Feasibility Study and Proposed Plan erroneously identify Mr.
David Pascale's wife, Cheryl Pascale, as a former owner of the Site.  Cheryl Pascale never owned
the Site. She joined in a deed conveying the property to GSAP, which was done at the request of
the partnership's title company in order to extinguish inchoate rights of dower she might have
otherwise been able to assert. The back title information reflects that Ms. Pascale was never in
the chain of title.

EPA Response: EPA notes that the presence of Cheryl Pascale's name on the deed to the
property indicates that she held title to the property and was therefore an owner of that property.
EPA has indicated in the ROD that Cheryl Pascale was added to the deed after David Pascale
obtained title to the property. Nevertheless, ownership of property is irrelevant in the selection
of a remedy under 40 C.F.R. Pa-t 300
 5.4.  Dr. Michael Gochfeld, Occupational Physician and Clinical Professor of
      Environmental and Community Medicine, Environmental and Occupational Health
      Sciences Institute at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School

5.4.1. Comment: After the former residents were evacuated from the building in 1996, the
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI) evaluated 27 adults with
regard to medical, neurobehavioral, and psychological consequences of the mercury exposure.
This work was supported by ATSDR. EOHSI found evidence of mercury-related
neurobehavioral impairment in a number of residents. Those residents with higher mercury
-------
                                            66
levels had reduced muscular coordination in their hands and fingers and showed evidence of
tremor.
In addition, the residents exhibited a severe level of psychological distress in relation to their
sudden evacuation from the homes which they had invested large sums of money and time. The
residents voiced anger, frustration, as well as anxiety about their future. Many of the residents
tested had clinically significant psychiatric problems resulting from a combination of the mercury
exposure and the need to be evacuated. Had they not been exposed to very high levels of
mercury, they would not have experienced these disruptions and would not be suffering their
current distress.

Observations of the residents are consistent with the stresses over which people have no control
but are particularly damaging. For example, people whose homes are rendered uninhabitable by
                                                                                         i
flood or fire eventually collect insurance and rebuild their homes and lives.  The victims of Grand
Street have not been able to do so.

The residents have not been able to "get on with their lives." They are trapped by forces over
which they have no control and are increasingly vulnerable to psychophysiological damage. Even
if the neurological effects of mercury exposure fade, the scarring fror • having lost control in their
lives and being on hold for so long may leave a long-term or permanent mark.

The residents need a rapid and definitive solution, which can be provided with permanent
relocation.

EPA Response: EPA's actions, throughout its involvement at the Site over the last year and a
half, clearly demonstrate the  Agency's commitment to address this Site. In less than two years,
EPA has expediently collected data, prepared a risk assessment and focussed feasibility study, and
has issued a Proposed Plan for remediation of the Site.   EPA acknowledges the  impacts that
recent events have had on the former residents of the Site.  EPA has expedited the remedy
-------
                                           67
selection process at the Site primarily because of the problems associated with lengthy temporiry
relocation, including the stress suffered by the building residents.  EPA emphasizes that the first
step in the remedial process will be permanent relocation of the former residents.

5.4.2. Comment: The Commenter provided the following comment pertaining to
implementation of remedial alternative two, which called for remediation of the building to
residential standards and moving the dissociated residents back into the building.

Superfund remediations rarely proceed quickly or smoothly. Assuming that it were to begin
immediately, it would mean that the residents would have been on hold for five years. That is
not a realistic expectation.  It is not realistic to expect the residents to return to the building
which has become a source of great pain and a symbol  of what has gone wrong in their lives.  Dr.
Gochfeld supports EPA's proposal not to remediate the building.

EPA Response: EPA estimates that implementation of remedial alternative two would keep the
dissociated residents in temporary relocation for four years, not including time to negotiate
implementation of the remedy with Potentially Responsible Parties.  In addition to the twenty-
one months they have already been temporarily relocated, EPA believes the dissociated  residents
would thus be in thi temporary relocation program for six to seven years (see footnote 7). EPA
agrees that six to seven years of temporary relocation would cause significant disruption to the
lives of these already distressed people. In addition, EPA has concerns about the costs associated
with keeping persons in temporary relocation for extended periods of time. On balance, looking
at the nine criteria which EPA must consider in selecting a remedy, EPA agrees that remediation
of the building for residential or commercial/industrial use is an inappropriate remedy at the Site.
-------
                                            68
5.5.  Response to Written Comments raised by George N. Pappas on behalf of Eugenio
Notaro

5.5.1.  Comment: The Commenter stated that Mr. Notaro has not let his children play in his
backyard which is adjacent to the Site since 1994 and will continue to prevent them from doing 504
a result of the results from EPA testing of soil in Mr. Notaro's yard.

EPA Response: As stated in the FFS (section 2.3.3), EPA sampled soil from Mr. Notaro's yard on
two occasions, on April 4, 1996 and February "!8, 1997, due to its proximity to the Site and the
potential for mercury contamination to have migrated onto this property. Mercury was detected in
all samples.  EPA used the results to perform a risk assessment to assess risks to children who inges!
soil.  The risk assessment shows that the risks associated with the mercury found in Mr. Notaro's
yard are well within acceptable ranges.

5.5.2.  Comment: The Commenter states that Mr. Notaro should be included in EPA's plan to
permanently relocate the former residents of the Site.

EPA Response: EPA has not included Mr. Notaro's property as part of the Site because EPA has
determined that the soil on Mr. Notaro's property does not pose an unacceptable i  k to anyone
(including children) who comes in direct contact with it (with regard to the presence of mercury).
a result, persons at the Notaro property will not be permanently relocated.
-------
                                  ATTACHMENT 1

                                  BASIS FOR EPA'S
                  INHALATION REFERENCE CONCENTRATION
                       FOR ELEMENTAL MERCURY VAPOR
INTRODUCTION

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a Reference
Concentration (RfC) of 0.3 Mg/ni3 for inhalation exposure to vapors of elemental (metallic)
mercury in air.  This RfC is a concentration which is believed to be without an appreciable risk of
deleterious effects in members of the general population (including sensitive subgroups), even if
exposure were to occur for a lifetime. This RfC was established using standard EPA methods and
approaches (EPA/600/8-88/066F, EPA/600/8-90/066F), and has been extensively reviewed by
scientists both within and outside the Agency. The basis for this RfC value is documented in
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).  The purpose of the present report is to
provide a summary of the data and the rational used to derive this RfC value.

KEY INHALATION STUDIES IN HUMANS

There are a number of studies on the adverse effects of inhalation exposure to mercury vapor,
both in animals and humans. Studies in humans are considered to be especially relevant in
deriving the inhalation RfC, since the difficulties and uncertainties associated with extrapolation
of dose and response data across species can be avoided. Presented below are brief descriptions of
the specific studies considered to be  most relevant and reliable in deriving the RfC for metallic
mercury vapor.
-------
                                           A-2
Fawer et al. 1983

Fawer et al. (1983) used a sensitive objective electronic measure of intention tremor (tremors tha
occur at the initiation of voluntary movements) in 26 male workers exposed to low levels of
mercury vapor in various occupations. The average duration of exposure was 15.3 years.
Controls (n-25) of similar age came from the same factories but were not exposed to mercury m
the workplace.  Personal air samples (two per subject) were used to measure airborne levels of
mercury. The average exposure across the exposed group was 26 //g/m3. It should be noted that
it is likely that the levels of mercury in the air varied during the period of exposure and historica
data indicate that previous exposures may have been higher. The measures of tremor were
significantly increased in the exposed group compared to controls, and Correlated with exposure
duration rather than chronological age.

Piikivi and Tolonen (1989)

Piikivi and Tolonen (1989) used electroencephalograms (EEGs)  to study the effects of long-term
exposure to mercury vapor in 41 chloralkali workers.  The mean exposure duration in the
workers was 15.6 years. Mean blood mercury levels were 12 Mg/L> and mean urinary mercury
levels were 20 A^g/L-  When compared with matched referent controls, about 15% of the exposed
workers tended to have an increased number of EEG abnormalities, including significantly slowe
and attenuated brain activity patterns. Although no data were available on average air levels of
mercury in the workplace, an average exposure level of 25 //g/mj was estimated from the mean
blood Hg level using the conversion factor calculated by Roels et al. (1987).

Piikivi and Hanninen (1989)

Piikivi and Hanninen (1989, studied the frequency of subjective symptoms and psychological
performance on a psychological test in 60 chloralkali workers.  Exposure was for an average of
 13.7 years. The exposed workers had mean blood Hg levels of 10 Mg/L and mean urine Hgl«ve's
-------
                                           A-3
of 17 Aig/L. Compared to matched referents, a statistically significant increase in subjective
measures of memory disturbance and sleep disorders was found in the exposed workers. The
exposed workers also reported more anger, fatigue and confusion.  No objective disturbances in
perceptual motor, memory or learning abilities were found in the exposed workers. The authors
extrapolated an exposure level associated with these subjective measures of memory disturbance of
25 ^g/ni3 from blood levels based on the conversion factor calculated by Roels et al. (1987).

Piikivi T1989)

Piikivi (1989) investigated both subjective and objective symptoms of autonomic dysfunction in
41 chloralkali workers exposed to mercury vapor.  Exposure was for a mean of 15.6 years.  The
exposed workers had mean blood levels of 11.6 j/g/L and mean urine levels of 19.3 /^g/L. The
test battery consisted of measurements of pulse rate, variation in normal and deep breathing in the
Valsalva maneuver and in vertical tilt, as well as blood pressure responses during standing and
isometric work. The exposed workers complained of more subjective symptoms of autonomic
dysfunction than the controls, but the only statistically significant difference was an increased
reporting of palpitations in the exposed workers.  The quantitative tests revealed a slight decrease
in pulse rate variations, indicative of autonomic reflex dysfunction in the exposed workers. The
authors extrapolated an exposure level associated with these subjective and objective measures of
autonomic dysfunction of 30 Mg/m3 from blood levels based on the conversion factor calculated
by Roels et al. (1987).
Nim et al.
Ngim et al. (1992) assessed neurobehavioral performance in a cross-sectional study of 98 dentists.
The average duration of practice of the exposed dentists was 5.5 years. Air concentrations were
measured with personal sampling badges over typical working hours (8-10 hours), and the average
concentration of mercury (adjusted to an 8-hour workday) was 14 Mg/m3. Blood samples from
the exposed cohort averaged 9.8 Aig/L, which corresponds to an estimated average air exposure of
-------
                                          A-4
about 23 ^g/m3, calculated using the conversion factor developed by Roels et al. (1987).  The
performance of the dentists was significantly worse than matched controls on a number of
neurobehavioral tests measuring motor speed (finger tapping), visual scanning, visuomotor
coordination and concentration, visual memory, and visuomotor coordination speed.

Liang et al. (1993)

Liang et al. (1993) used a computer-administered neurobehavioral evaluation system and  a mood
inventory profile to investigate effects of m -cury exposure in a fluorescent lamp factory. The
average exposure duration was  15.8 years, and all members of the cohort were exposed for at least
two years.  Exposure was monitored with area samplers and ranged from 8 to 85 Mg/m3 across
worksites.  Based on these measurements, the average exposure was estimated to be 33 Mg/m3.
Urinary excretion was also monitored and reported to average 25 /'g/L.  Compared to matched
controls, the exposed cohort performed significantly worse on tests of finger tapping, mental
arithmetic, two-digit searches, switching attention, and visual reaction time. The effect on
performance persisted  after the confounding factor of chronological age was controlled.

Weight of Evidence Evaluation

Table 1 summarizes these key occupational studies in humans.  Taken together, these studies
provide evidence that inhalation exposure to average levels of about 25 Mg/m3 of mercury in the
workplace is associated with increased occurrence of preclinical indicators of neurological and
neurobehavioral effects.  Based on these studies, a TWA workplace exposure level of 25  /ig/m3
was judged to be the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL).  Importantly, none of the
available studies identify a TWA concentration of mercury that may be  considered a No
Observed Adverse Effect level  (NOAEL).
-------
                                        A-5
SUPPORTING STUDIES FOR NEUROLOGICAL EFFECTS

A number of other studies exist which provide supporting evidence that inhalation exposure to
mercury vapor can cause neurological effects in humans. This includes Levine et al. 1982, Singer
et al. 1987, Miller et al. 1975, Roels et al. 1982, Roels et al. 1985, Roels et al. 1989, Verbeck et al.
1986, Rosenman et al. 1986, Smith et al. 1970, Albers et al. 1988, Forzi et al. 1978, and Langolf et
al. 1978. Each of these studies reported an association between one or more indicators of
neurological dysfunction and exposure to meicury in the workplace.

OTHER SYSTEMIC EFFECTS

Inhalation exposure to mercury vapor has been observed to cause adverse effects in a number of
target systems, including the kidney, liver, stomach, and lungs, but only at concentrations higher
than are associated with effects on the nervous system.
REPRODUCTIVE AND DEVELOPMENTAL EFFECTS

Information is limited on the effect of mercury inhalation on reproductive and developmental
endpoints in humans. Some studies have found no effect (Alcser et al. 1989, Lauwerys et al. 1985),
while some studies have observed evidence of an increased rate of reproductive problems or
failures (Cordier et al. 1991, Sikorski et al. 1987, Mishinova et al. 1980). These data are considered
to be too limited to define a reliable NOAEL or LOAEL for reproductive and developmental
effects in humans.

POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE SUBGROUPS

Probably the most widely recognized form of hypersenshivity to mercury poisoning is the
uncommon syndrome known as acrodynia, also called erythredema polyneuropathy or pink
-------
                                           A  6
disease (Warkany and Hubbard, 1953). Infantile acrodynia was first described in 1828, but adult
cases have also since been reported.  The basis of the disease is unknown but it appears to depend
on idiosyncratic factors since individuals who are effected are not necessarily the most highly
exposed.

Fetuses are also potentially more susceptible to mercury than adults. For example, exposure to
alkyl mercury compounds during pregnancy can produce severe effects in infants while causing
only mild effects in the mothers (Harada 1978, Marsh et al. 1987).  Neonates may be susceptible
to mercury toxicity due to the potential for mercury exposure via mothers' milk (Yoshida et al.
1992), coupled with a high gastrointestinal absorption rate (Kostial et al. 1978).

DERIVATION OF THE RfC

The RfC for inhalation exposure was calculated from the LOAEL for workplace exposure using
standard methods. The object of the calculation is to estimate a concentration in air that will be
without significant risk of adverse effects to members of the general public, including sensitive
subgroups. The calculation was performed as follows:
                          ,  \Qm3lday   5 days
                   IS^g/m 3 *	—'- *—-^-
  ,                           20m 3/day   Idays
where:        RJC =	
                              10*3
       25 jUg/m3 — LOAEL for preclinical neurobehavioral effects in exposed workers. The basis
       for this value is presented above.

       (10 mVday)/(20 mVday) - adjustment to extrapolate from the assumed mean breathing
       rate in workers investigated in the key studies (10 m3 per 8-hour workday) to the assume^
       mean breathing rate in the general public (20 m3 per 24 hour day)
-------
                                          A-7
      (5 days/7 days) = adjustment factor to account for the fact that workers are exposed on
      average only 5 days per week, while members of the general public may be exposed 7 days
      per week.

      10 - uncertainty factor.  This factor was selected to account for use of a LOAEL rather
      than a NOAEL in the calculation, and to account for the occurrence of potentially
      sensitive subgroups in the general population (see above).

      3 - uncertainty factor. This factor was selected to account for the lack of a strong
      database on reproductive and developmental endpoints (see above).

CONFIDENCE IN THE RfC

Although the database on the adverse effects of inhalation exposure to elemental mercury is
extensive, including a number of chronic studies in humans, the database is subject to a number of
limitations which limit confidence in the RfC.

First, the key studies on neurological effects from inhalation exposure in the workplace include
quantitative exposure data only for current conditions, and not for past conditions when
exposures may have been higher. In addition, exposure estimates derived from blood and/or
urine levels may be confounded by possible exposures via dermal and/c- oral exposures as well as
inhalation.  Both of these factors could tend to result in selection of a LOAEL for air that is too
low. However, in  the absence of data on historic exposure levels and the relative contribution of
dermal and oral exposure routes, no quantitative adjustment in the LOAEL is currently possible.

Second, workplace studies are restricted to evaluation of generally-healthy adults, and data on
potential effects in  sensitive subgroups are very limited. In particular, available data are not
sufficient to identify an exposure level that would be without risk to an infant, or to establish
-------
                                            A-8
unequivocally that exposure levels that are protective of the mother are also protective of the
fetus.

It is for these reasons that an overall uncertainty factor of 30 is required in derivation of the Rf(
and confidence in the RfC is judged to be medium.
-------
                                          A-9
REFERENCES

Albers J.W., L.R. Kallenbach, L.J. Fine, et al. 1988. Neurological
abnormalities associated with remote occupational elemental mercury exposure.
Ann. Neurol. 24(5): 651-659.

Alcser, K.H., K.A. Birx, and L.J.Fine. 1989.  Occupational mercury exposure and male
reproductive health. Am. J. Ind. Med. 15(5):517-529.

Cordier, S., F. Deplan, L. Mandereau, et al. 1991. Parental exposure to mercury and spontaneous
abortions. Br. J. Ind. med. 48(6):375-381.

Fawer, R.F., Y. DeRibaupierre, M.P. Guillemin, M. Berode and M. Lob. 1983.
Measurement of hand tremor induced by industrial exposure to metallic mercury.
J. Ind. Med.  40:204-208.

Forzi, M., M.G. Cassitto, CL Bulgheroni and V. Foa. 1978. Psychological
measures in workers occupationally exposed to mercury vapors: A validation
study.  In: Adverse Effects of Environmental Chemicals and Psychotropic
Drugs: Neurophysiological and Behavioral Tests, Vol. 2, H.J. Zimmerman, Ed.
Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, NY.  p. 165-171.

Harada, H.  1977. Congenital Minamata disease: intrauterine methyl mercury poisoning.
teratology 18:285-288.

Kostial, K., D. Kello, S. Jugo, et al.  1978. Influence of age on metal metabolism and toxicity.
Environ, health perspect. 25:81-86.

Langolf, G.D., D.B. Chaffm, R. Henderson and H.P. Whittle. 1978.  Evaluation
-------
                                         A- 10
of workers exposed to elemental mercury using quantitative tests of tremor and
neuromuscular functions. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 39: 976-984.

Lauwerys, R., H. Roels, P. Genet, G. Toussaint, A. Bouckaert and S. De Cooman.
1985. Fertility of male workers exposed to mercury vapor or to manganese
dust:  A questionnaire study.  Am. J. Ind. Med. 7(2):  171-176.

Levine, S.P., G.D. Cavender,  G.D.  Langolf and J.W. Albers.  1982.  Elemental
mercury exposure:  Peripheral neurotoxicity. Br. J. Ind. Med. 39: 136-139.

Liang, Y-X., R-K. Sun, Y. Sun, Z-Q. Chen and L-H. Li.  1993. Psychological
effects of low exposure to mercury  vapor: Application of a computer-
administered neurobehavioral evaluation system.  Environ. Res. 60: 320-327.

Marsh, D.O., T.W. Clarkson, C. Cox, et al. 1987. Fetal methylmercury poisoning: relationships
between concentration in single strands of hair and child effects. Arch. Neurol. 44:1017-1022.

Miller, J.M., D.B. Chaffin and R.G. Smith.  1975. Subclinical psychomotor and
neuromuscular changes in workers exposed to inorganic mercury. Am. Ind. Hyg.
Assoc. J. 36:725-733.

Mishonova, V.N., P.A. Stepanova and V.V. Zarudin.  1980.  Characteristics of
the course of pregnancy and labor in women corning in contact with low
concentrations of metallic mercury vapors in manufacturing work places. Gig
Tr Prof Zabol.  Issue 2: 21-23.

Ngim, C.H., S.C. Foo, K.W. Boey and J. Jeyaratnam.  1992.  Chronic
neurobehavioral effects of elemental mercury in dentists.  Br. J. Ind. Med.
49: 782-790.
-------
                                         A- 11
Pnkivi, L.  1989.  Cardiovascular reflexes and low long-term exposure to
mercury vapor. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health.  61: 391-395.

Piikivi, L. and H. Hanninen.  1989. Subjective symptoms and psychological
performance of chlorine-alkali workers. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health.
15: 69-74.

Piikivi, L. and U. Tolonen. 1989. EEC findings in chlor-alkali workers
subjected to low long term exposure to mercury vapor. Br. J. Ind. Med.
46: 370-375.

Roels, H., R. Lauwerys, J.P. Buchet, et al. 1982.  Comparison of renal
function and psychomotor performance in workers exposed to elemental mercury.
Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health. 50: 77-93.

Roels, H., J.P. Gennart, R. Lauwreys, J.P. Buchet, J. Malchaire and A.
Bernard. 1985. Surveillance of workers exposed to mercury vapor: validation
of a previously proposed biological threshold limit value for mercury
concentration in urine. Am. J. Ind. Med. 7: 45-71.

Roels, H., S. Abdeladim, E. Ceulemans and R. L auwreys. 1987. Relationships
between the concentrations of mercury in air and in blood or urine in workers
exposed to mercury vapour. Ann. Occup. Hyg.  31(2): 135-145.

Roels, H., S. Abdeladim, M. Braun, J. Malchaire and R. Lauwerys. 1989.
Detection of hand tremor in workers exposed to mercury vapor: A comparative
study of three methods. Environ. Res. 49: 152-165.

Rosenman,  K.D., J. A. Valciukas, L. Glickman, B.R. Meyers and A. Cinotti.
-------
                                         A- 12
1986. Sensitive indicators of inorganic mercury toxicity. Arch. Environ.
Health. 41(4): 208-215.

Sikorski, R., T. Juszkiewiez, T. Paszkowski, wr al.  1987. Women in dental surgeries:
reproductive hazards in occupational exposure to metallic mercury.  Int. Arch. Occup. Health
59:551-557.

Singer, R., J.A. Valciukas and K.D. Rosenman. 1987. Peripheral neurotoxicity
in workers exposed to inorganic mercury compounds.  Arch. Environ. Health.
42(4): 181-184.

Smith, R.G., A.J. Vorwald, L.S. Patil and T.F. Mooney, Jr.  1970. Effects of
exposure to mercury in the manufacture of chlorine. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J.
31(1): 687-700.

U.S. EPA.  1995. Mercury Study Report to Congress.  Office of Research and
Development, Washington DC 20460.  EPA/600/P-94/002AB.  External Review Draft.

Verbeck, MM., H.J.A. Salle and C.H. Kemper. 1986.  Tremor in workers with
low exposure to metallic mercury. Hyg. Assoc. J. 47(8): 559-562.

Warkany, J. and D.M. Hubbard. 1953.  Acrodynia and mercury. J. Pediat. 42:
365-386.

Yoshida, M., H. Satoh, T.  Kishimoto, et al. 1992. Exposure to mercury via breast milk in
suckling offspring of maternal guinea pigs exposed to mercury vapor after parturition. J. Toxicol.
Elem. Exp. Med. 3(3):219-226.
-------
            A-13
TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF KEY STUDIES
Study
Fawcr ct al.
1983
Piikivi and
Tolonen 1989
Piikivi and
Hanninen 1989

Piikivi
1989
Ngimecal.
1992
Liang etaL
1993
N
26

41

60


41

98

88

Air Exposure
Level fctg/m5)
26 (air data)

25 (blood data)

25 (blood data)


30 (blood data)

14 (air data)
23 (blood data)
33 (air data)

NOAEL
fcg/m3)
-

-

-


-

-

-

LOAEL
fcg/m3)
26

25

25


30

14-23

33

Adverse
Effect
Increased tremor

Increased EEG abnormalities
*
Increased measures of sleep
disorder and memory
disturbance
Increased autonomic reflex
dysfunction
Impaired performance on
neurobehavioral tests
Impaired performance on
neurobehavioral tests
-------
  APPENDIX A






PROPOSED PLAN






   JULY 1997
-------
Superfimd Proposed Plan
c/EFA
Grand Street Mercury  Site
             Hoboken, New Jersey
Region 2
                                                                      Jul\ 1997
     Mark Your Calendar

  July9-Augast7,1997:
  Publk comment period on the
  Proposed Han foe die Grand Street
  Mercury Site
  Wednesday, July 16,1997,
  7:00pm: Public Meeting at-
  Hoboken High School
 Community Role in the
 Selection Process

   EPA relies on public input to ensure
   that the concerns of the communi-
 ty are considered in selecting an effec-
 tive remedy for each Superfund site.
 To this end, the Focused Feasibility
 Study Report, the Risk Assessment,
 the Proposed Plan, and other support-
 ing documentation have  been made
 available to the public for a public**
 comment period that begins on July 9
 and concludes on August 7, 1997.
   A public meeting will be held dur-
 ing the public comment period at
 Hoboken High School on Wednesday,
 July  16, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss
 the alternatives that EPA considered
 and the reasons for recommending the
 preferred remedial alternative. The
 public will have an opportunity to ask
 questions and comment on the reme-
 dial alternatives during the meeting.
                                                   PURPOSE OF PROPOSED PLAN
               This Proposed Plan describes the alternatives that the U.S. Environmental
               Protection Agency (EPA) considered for relocating the prior residents of
            the building and for remediating mercury1 contamination in the building and in
            the soil at the Grand Street Mercury Site ("the Site") in Hoboken, New Jersey.
            The plan also identifies EPA's preferred remedial alternative and the rationale
            for this preference. This document was developed by EPA, in consultation with
            the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The alter-
            natives summarized here are described in greater detail in the Focused Feasi-
            bility Study, which is now available at the Hoboken Public Library.
                                                                          • •
               EPA's preferred remedial alternative would involve relocation of the prior
            building  residents into permanent housmg and demolition of the  building.
            Permanent relocation would consist of the provision of relocation benefits to
            owners and occupants of the Site, including: compensation for the property to
            be acquired; moving and related expenses; replacement housing assistance;
            and relocation advisory services. Following completion of the  propeny
            acquisition,  flooring would be methodically removed from the  building, the
            building  would be demolished, and all debris would  be disposed of at EPA-
            approved facilities. Soil sampling would be conducted at the Site, and  mer-
            cury-contaminated soil above risk-based levels would be excavated  and dis-
            posed of at  EPA-approved facilities. Groundwater would be monitored to
            assess site impact to groundwater quality.

               EPA encourages the public to review and comment on  all of the alterna-
            tives considered by EPA in this Proposed Plan. The remedy described in this
            Proposed Plan is EPA's preferred remedy for the  Site. Changes to  the pre-
            ferred remedy or a change from the preferred remedy to another remedy may
            be made if public comments or additional data indicate that such a change
            will result in a more appropriate remedy. EPA, in consultation with NJDEP.
            will select the remedy after taking all public comments into consideration.A
                       1 Words first appearing in bold are defined in the glossary at the end tit tht\ tim timenl
             In addition to oral comments which
          may be submitted during the public
          meeting, written comments may be
          submitted and should be addressed to:

          John Hansen
          Remedial Project Manager
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
          290 Broadway, 19'" Floor
          New York, NY  10007-1866
   A copy of the Focused Feasibility
Study and other site-related docu-
ments are available at the
following locations:

Hoboken Public Library
500 Park Avenue
Hoboken, NJ 07030
(201)420-2347
-------
 SuptrjunJ Pmpoied Pla*
 Hours. Mon, Wed, ana Fri. 9an>-5pn>
 Tues and Thurs, 9am-8pm

 'Tkese summer hours are in effect from
 June 22-Sepiember 1. 1997

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Records Center
 290 Broadway, J 8* Floor
 New YOTK. NT 10007-1866
 By appointment: (212) 637-4308

 EPA, after consultation with NJDEP, will select a remedy
 for the Site only after the public comment period has
 ended and the information submitted during that time has
 been reviewed and considered. EPA is issuing this Pro-
 posed Plan as pan of its public participation responsibili-
 ties under Section 117(at) of the Comprehensive Envi-
 ronmental Response, Compensation, andUabilily Act
  Tool  and Die Com
pany manufactured precision tools at the Site. Cooper-
                      Figure I
       Location of the  Grand Street
                 Mercury Site
            HobokervNew Jersey
       =- \ Grand Street Meronry Site lf=~/
             -..  :-*  -*-
-------
                                                                           Grand Street Mercur\ Site. Hoboken. New Jersey
 Hewitt and General Electric manufactured mercury-con-
 laining switches, mercury vapor lamps and other light-
 ing materials and products at the Site. Mercury associated
 With the manufacture of the vapor lamps and switches is
 believed to be the primary contaminant source for the
 mercury contamination prevalent throughout the building.
 yapor lamps were manufactured at the Site from 1910 to
 iipproximately 1965.
                     plan necessary to address mercury contamination at the
                     industrial establishment was not developed and imple-
                     mented.

                        David Pascale sold the property in 1993 to the Grand
                     Street Artists Partnership (GSAP). The GSAP split the
                     former manufacturing building into 16 units, and indi-
                     vidual partners began renovating them into residential
   John Pascale, Sr., and the Qual-
 ity Tool and Die Company sold
 Jihe Site in 1979 to David Pascale.
 In 1990, David Pascale filed an
 application for cessation of opera-
 tion for Quality Tool and Die
 Company under New Jersey Envi-
 ronmental Cleanup and Responsi-
 bility Act (ECRA) statute. Based
 apon a certification of previous
 Operational history on the Site,
 \Ar. Pascale certified to the NJDEP
 that the only area of concern was
 ,b underground heating oil tank,
 Uhich he had removed prior to his
 ECRA application. In  his ECRA
 application, David Pascale of
 Quality Tool and Die Company
 [lid not identify previous manufac-
 furing of mercury vapor lamps.
 After removing soil which con-
gained petroleum hydrocarbons
 and placing an asphalt cap over
Sjthe parking lot, David Pascale
 ! received an approval of his ECRA
 ("negative declaration" by NJDEP.
 The negative declaration required
 /that David Pascale place a nota-
 tion on the deed for the property
 *which restricted future disturbance
 Zof the asphalt cap. NJDEP
 ^rescinded the negative declaration
 Approval in December 1996. This
 rescission was based upon  the fact
 that the investigation did not accu-
 rately depict the full type, extent,
 and magnitude of the contamina-
 tion, both inside the building on
 the premises and outside, on the
 land surrounding the building. As
 a result, all areas of concern at the
 Quality Tool and Die Company
 were  not identified, and a cleanup
                                Figure 2
               Grand Street Mercury Site Plan
Columbus
 Garden
 Houdnf
 Complex
                    GE& Cooper-Hewitt 1
                   Manufacturing Building
                             410
                       Commercial
                        Building
 Hoboken
Hifh School
                                               "IT Condo
                                                  Units
                                    Condo
                                    Units
Parking Lot
                                               Condo
                                                Units
                   Residential
                     Housing
                                                              Commercial
                                                                  and
                                                               Industrial
                                                               Buildings
Residential
 Housing
                         Buildings at             I
                         720 and 722-732 Grand Strtet I
                               Residential
                                Housing
                         Interior Dividing Wall*   	— 1993 NJDEP Deed Restricted Area
   Shaded Areas Indicate Site
-------
Superfund Proposed Plan
condominiums. During renovation, members of the GSAP
noticed small amounts of a silvery subsianct which
appeared to be mercury. The GSAP attributed these obser-
vations to demolition of air handler units and associated
thermostat or switching controls, and to a partially filled,
small jar of what appeared to be mercury that was broken
and spilled in one of the units. After renovation and con-
struction of residential/work spaces, residents began mov-
ing into the building in mid- to late-1994. There were 34
people living in the building as of January 4, 1996.

   During renovation of a fifth floor unit in January 1995,
puddles of mercury were observed underneath the top
layer of flooring. The prospective property owner attempt-
ed a cleanup by collecting and consolidating the puddles
of mercury into vials and then removing mercury-contam-
inated flooring. Mercury contamination continued to be
problematic in that uni: during the cleanup attempt- As a
result of the contamination in this unit, the GSAP hired a
private contractor in March  1995 to conduct a mercury
vapor survey of the building. Elevated concentrations of
mercury vapors were detected in parts of the building.
The contractor recommended that a mercury cleanup be
performed where mercury vapors were detected in the
building.

   From March through October 1995, the GSAP initi-
ated measures to clean up the mercury contamination
found on the fifth floor. In September  1995, some con-
taminated flooring was removed and placed into a small
cargo trailer located in the parking lot. The contents of the
cargo trailer were later transferred to a shed constructed in
die parking lot at the Site.

   In September 1995, the Hudson Regional Health Com-
mission inspected the site to observe mercury remediation
activities. The Health Commission inspector observed that
mercury contamination was present on the fifth floor of the
building and that a mercury remediation was underway.

   On November 2,  1995, a resident on the fourth floor
reported seeing drops of mercury on the oven and kitchen
countertops. The next day, GSAP's environmental con-
tractor returned to the building, cleaned the kitchen area,
and sealed a crack between the ceiling and a wall. On
November 8, a mercury vapor survey was performed in
two units at the request of the residents. Mercury vapors
were detected in both units and in common areas of the
building at levels exceeding EPA residential risk-based
standards.

   ki November and December 1995, five residents pro-
vided urine samples to their private physicians for analy-
sis. Results from three of the tests were provided to the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR). a branch of the Centers for Disease Control
responsible for preparing health consultations at hazard-
ous waste siies. for review. Two of these samples, provid-
ed by children, showed elevated mercury concentrations.

   ki November  1995, the Hoboken Health Department
was notified by one of the residents that a mercury con-
tamination problem existed and the Health Department's
assistance was requested. On December 22, EPA received
a request from NJDEP to assist the Hoboken Health
Department in assessing  the extent of mercury contamina-
tion in the building.

   On December 27, 1995. EPA and its contractor sur-
veyed 15 units, the attached townhouse, and hallways on
each floor. Air concentrations of mercury were measured
at several locations in each unit at heights of six  inches
and five feet above the floor.
                                           ••
   In addition to the environmental testing performed on
December 27, representatives from the Hudson Regional
Health Commission and Hoboken Health Department col-
lected urine samples from 31 persons associated with the
building. Mercury concentrations detected in residents
ranged from 3 to  102 micrograms of mercury per liter of
urine (ug/1), and 20 samples had mercury concentrations
equal to or greater than 20 ug/1. ATSDR stated that
adverse health effects may be associated with mercury
levels greater than 20 u.g/1. 20 ug/1 is the upper limit of
background mercury concentrations in adults.

   On January 2,  1996, EPA received a request from
NJDEP to conduct an emergency removal action under
CERCLA and to continue assisting the Hoboken Health
Department in assessing the extent of mercury contamina-
tion. On January 3. 1996. ATSDR concluded in a Health
Consultation that an imminent health hazard existed at the
Site, based upon the elevated concentrations of mercury
in the urine samples of residents, the puddles of  elemental
mercury in the floor, and the elevated concentrations of
mercury in the air. ATSDR recommended the residents
be dissociated from further exposure to mercury in the
building.

   On January 4, the Hoboken Health Department, based
on advice from the New Jersey Department of Health,
ordered the residents to vacate the building by January 9,
1996. Due to a severe snowstorm that week, the  deadline
of January 9. 1996 was extended by two days. All resi-
dents vacated the building by 6:00 p.m. on January 11.
19%. On January 4. EPA authorized  a Superfund remova
-------
                                                                         Grand Street Mtrcurr Site. Hoboken. ,VVu- JtrstY
action at the Site. The removal action included providing
temporary relocation assistance to residents, securing and
maintaining the building, performing an extent of con-
tamination investigation, and screening the personal
belongings of the residents for mercury.

  On January 22, 1996, ATSDR issued a Public Health
Advisory that proclaimed mercury contamination in the
building posed "an imminent public health hazard" to
residents of the Site via inhalation of mercury vapors and
by possible ingestion of elemental mercury. In addition,
the Public Health Advisory stated "the potential exists for
mercury-contaminated possessions to be taken out of the
building to continue to expose residents of 722 Grand
Street, contaminate other areas and expose other members
of the public."

  On December 23, 1996, EPA proposed to add the Site
to its National Priorities List (NPL) based on: the findings
of ATSDR's Public Health Advisory; EPA's determination
that the threat of a release of hazardous substances poses
a significant threat to public health; and EPA's belief that
its remedial authority is more cost-effective than its re-
moval authority in addressing the long-term threats at the
Site. The NPL is EPA's list of the top priority hazardous
waste sites in the country eligible for long-term remedial
evaluation and response under the Superfund  program.

  Currently, the former residents of the building remain
temporarily relocated. The building is secured by a 24-
hour guard and maintained. EPA performs periodic moni-
toring for mercury at the Site. In the near future, EPA will
turn over Site  security and maintenance activities to
potentially responsible panics who have agreed to con-
duct this work under an  order from EPA. EPA will over-
see this work to ensure it is adequately performed.
Results of Previous Investigations

   EPA has collected air, soil, and sediment samples and
   samples of building material from the Site. In addition,
EPA evaluated the results of two GSAP-initiated air moni-
toring events. EPA also evaluated the results of urine
samples provided by prior residents of the Site. The pur-
pose of obtaining this information was to determine the
nature and extent of contamination at the Site and the
degree to which prior residents had been exposed to mer-
cury at the Site. The results are summarized below.
 Indoor Air Sampling

 EPA and GSAP have generated a significant body of data
 from air monitoring and sampling for indoor concentra-
 tions of mercury. GSAP conducted air sampling activities
 in March and November 1995. EPA conducted air sam-
 pling activities in December 1995 and January and Febru-
 ary  19%. EPA initiated periodic air monitoring through-
 out the building in January 1996, which is ongoing. '

   Almost 2,000 air samples have been collected, and
 approximately  70 percent of those samples identified mer-
 cury vapors throughout the main building and townhouse.
 Mercury vapor concentrations in air at the breathing zone
 (6 inches and 5 feet) in the condominium units, the base-
 ment, common areas of the main building, and in the
 townhouse range from "nondetect" (below the lowest
 level instruments are able to detect) to 300 micrograms of
 mercury per cubic meters of air (ug/m3), well above EPA
 residential  risk-based concentrations (see section on Risk
 Assessment below). Mercury vapor concentrations imme-
 diately above liquid mercury and in holes and cracks ia
 floonng have exceeded instrument detection capability
 (999 ug/m3) on numerous occasions. Mercury vapors
 were not detected at adjacent off-site locations at any inte-
 rior sampling points.

 Building  Resident  Urine Sampling

 Urine samples were provided by building residents and
 other individuals related to the Site on two occasions in
 1995. During the first event, urine samples were provided
 by several building residents to their private physicians, ia
 November and December 1995 and were analyzed for
 mercury. Results ranged from 11 to 65 ug/l, and the two
 child residents monitored had levels above 20 ug/l.

   During the second event, 31  urine samples from GSAP
 partners, building residents, and workers at the Site  were
collected and analyzed by the Hoboken Health Department
 and Hudson Regional Health Commission. Results ranged
 from 3 ug/l (nonresident GSAP partner) to 102 ug/l. Of
 the 31 individuals tested, 20 exhibited mercury concentra-
 tions in their urine in excess of  20 ug/l. including 5  of the
 6 children monitored. ATSDR stated that adverse health
effects may be associated with mercury levels greater than
 20 ug/l.
-------
          roposed Plan
On-Srte Soil and Sed/'ments Sampling

EPA collected on-siie soil samples from the parking lot
and sediment samples from the building to determine the
nature and extent of mercury contamination in those
media. In order to obtain soil samples from the parking
lot, EPA created a grid which divided the parking loi into
27 sections (quadrants). Within each quadrant, EPA col-
lected up to eight soil samples  and combined those
sampler with each other to create one composite sample
for each quadrant. Additional discrete (individual; not
combined with others) soil samples were collected from a
variety of depths in three quadrants where higher concen-
trations of mercury were detected. A totaJ of 30 composite
and 22 discrete soil samples were collected. Mercury was
detected in every soil sample at concentrations ranging
from 0.77 to 290 milligrams of mercury per kilogram of
soil (mg/kg). In 12 of the 27 quadrants, mercury compos-
ite samples were above EPA's residential risk-based con-
centration standard of 23 mg/kg, which was calculated in
the Baseline Risk Assessment (see below). The highest
concentrations of mercury were detected next to the build-
ing.

   EPA also collected sediment samples from floor drains
and sump pits in the basement  of the building. The results
indicate thai mercury, in concentrations ranging from 36
to 1,540 mg/kg, is present in all of the floor drains and
sump pits tested.

Off-Site Soil Sampling

EPA collected soil samples from a residential yard and
basement adjacent to the Site. These samples were col-
lected because of the property's proximity to the Site and
the potential for mercury to have migrated (moved) onto
the property. The average concentration delected on the
property was below the EPA risk-based standard of 23
mg/kg. In addition, EPA conducted a risk assessment for
this property which determined that the levels of mercury
found at the property do not constitute a risk to human
health.

Indoor Sampling of Structural Components

EPA collected data to determine the presence of liquid
mercury in the wooden flooring, structural  components,
and interior brick surfaces at the Site. To determine the
presence of liquid mercury in wooden flooring at the Site,
a meter  was used to detect mercury concentrations in
cracks in the floor. When mercury levels were detected,
flooring layers were removed. Liquid mercury was
observed in the flooring in 13 of the  16 units in the main
building. EPA collected and analyzed 8 samples of liquid
elemental mercury found in buii ;ng flooring, which was
visibly mixed with din and debni, and determined it to be
up to 51 percent pure.

   In addition. EPA used X-Ray Fluorescence technol-
ogy to identify the extent to which mercury may have
penetrated wooden components in the roof and wooden
horizontal and  vertical support beams in three condo-
minium units. The results indicate mercury contamination
(ranging from 0.790 to 13,078 mg/kg) is prevalent
throughout these structural components.

   EPA also used the X-Ray Fluorescence technology to
identify mercury contamination on the exposed brick
walls inside the building. EPA collected samples from
14 locations on the fourth and fifth floors. Mercury was
detected in all of the samples. Mercury concentrations in
the brick walls ranged from 39.8 to 9,110 mg/kg.
Results of the Baseline

Risk Assessment

   EPA conducted a Baseline Human Health Risk Assess-
   ment to assess potential human health risks associated
with mercury contamination at the Site. The following
four-step process was used to conduct the Risk Assess-
ment:
1. Hazard Identification • identifies the contaminants of
  concern at the Site based on their toxicity, frequency of
  occurrence, and concentration.
2. Exposure Assessment - estimates the reasonable maxi-
  mum concentration of contaminants to which people,
  plants and wildlife may be  exposed by considering the
  frequency and duration of these exposures, and the
  potential pathways (for example, inhalation of chemical
  vapors).
3. Toxicity Assessment - determines the toxic effects of
  exposure to the contaminants at the estimated concen-
  trations at the Site.
4. Risk Characterization - provides a quantitative assess-
  ment of the overall current  and future risk to people,
  plants and wildlife from Site contaminants, based on
  the exposure and toxicity information, including a dis-
  cussion of uncertainties.
-------
                                                                         Grand Street Mercury Site. Hoboken. New Jersey
Mercury (in elemental form—found as a liquid and as
vapors in the air at room temperature) is the contaminant
of concern at the Site. Mercury vapors have been
observed to increase indoors at the Site as temperature
rises. Mercury is not considered by EPA to be a human
carcinogen; therefore, only adverse noncancer health
effects of exposure to  mercury in air and soil were evalu-
ated in this risk assessment. The purpose of the Baseline
Human Health Risk Assessment was to determine the risk
of exposure to mercury in air for adult and child residents
and potential future workers of the Grand Street build-
ings, as well as the exposure risk to child residents and
adult workers to mercury by ingestion of contaminated
soil.

   Noncancer health effects of mercury exposure include
tremors in the fingers, eyelids, lips, hands and arms;
depression; irritability; exaggerated response to stimuli;
excessive shyness; insomnia; emotional instability; and
death.

   The noncancer health effects of mercury  exposure
were assessed by comparing Estimated Daily Intakes to
Reference Doses (a dose that produces no negative health
effects) to determine Hazard Quotients. A Hazard Quo-
tient of one or less indicates that people are  not likely to
develop adverse health effects, including sensitive indi-
viduals. A Hazard Quotient greater than one indicates
that adverse health effects are possible. A hazard quotient
greater than one may warrant action to protect the
exposed population from future exgpxure.

   A Hazard Quotient of 510 was calculated for child
residents exposed to mercury in air, this suggests a sig-
nificant potential for future development of adverse non-
                cancer health effects. The EPA-calculated hazard quo-
                tients of 110 and 100 for adult residents and adult workers
                (respectively) exposed to mercury in air also suggest
                significant potential for future development of adverse
                noncancer health effects.

                  The Hazard Quotient for ingestion of mercury-con-
                taminated soil shows a potential for future development of
                adverse noncancer health effects to children living at the
                Site (2.1) and an unlikely potential for future development
                of adverse noncancer health effects to adult workers
                (0.08) at the Site and to children (0.09) who live adjacent
                to the Site  (off-site child residents). Although the potential
                for adverse effects to future child residents at the Site is
                marginal, there is some uncertainty in these estimates
                since many of EPA's soil samples were composites of
                surficial soils and soils at depth. This may have resulted in
                an underestimation of the potential for adverse health ef-
                fects for future child residents. As will be discussed
                below, additional discrete (no more than 6 inches of soil
                depth in one sample) soil sampling is warranted.

                  The preliminary remediation goal (PRO) for mercury
                in soil at the Grand Street site was determined in die
                Baseline Risk Assessment to be 23 mg/kg, which was cal-
                culated based on soil ingestion. A qualitative assessment
                indicates that a soil PRG of 23 mg/kg is protective of pub-
                lic health for both ingestion and inhalation exposures.

                  The Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment prepared
                by EPA corroborates with ATSDR's determination thai
                Site conditions pose an imminent and substantial short-
                term and long-term health risk to its residents and that
                temporary relocation is warranted to protect these indi-
                viduals from future exposure.
                                                   Table I
                EPA Human Health Risk Findings for Exposed Populations
                       and Pathways at the  Grand Street Mercury Site
  EXPOSURE
 ^PATHWAY
  Inhalation of Mercury in Air
                                                             ' AZARD QUOTIENT
 Child
Resident
  510
   Adult
  Resident
     110
 Adult
Worker
  100
Oil-Site Child
  Resident
 Not Assessed
  Ingestion of Mercury in Soil
   2.1
Not Assessed
  0.08
     0.0*
-------
          roposed Plan
Remedial Action  Objectives

   Re-nedial Action Objectives (RAOs) are specific goals
   10 protect human health and the environment. These
objectives are based on available information and stan-
dards such as applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) and the risk-based levels estab-
lished in the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment.

   Based upon available information and ARARs, RAOs
for mercury in soils and air are designed, in pan, to elimi-
nate the health threat posed by tngestion and inhalation of
mercury. The following RAOs were established for the
Site:
•  minimize the immediate and future threat of release to
   the environment by a fire in the building, or by any
   other means
•  ensure immediate and long-term health protection of
   future child residents by preventing inhalation of mer-
   cury vapors above the risk-based standard of 0.09ug/m3
   from the Baseline Risk Assessment, in the building;
•  ensure immediate and long-term health protection of
   future industrial/commercial workers in the building
   by preventing inhalation of mercury vapors above the
   risk-based standard of 0.44 fig/m3 from the Baseline
   Risk Assessment, in  the building;
•  ensure immediate and long-term human health protec-
   tion by preventing ingestion of soils witr average mer-
   cury concentrations above the risk-based standard of 23
   mg/kg from the Baseline Risk Assessment; and
•  minimize the amount of contaminant at the Site.
Ultimate End Use for

the Grand Street Property

   EPA considers, for all remedial actions it undertakes, the
   planned ultimate end use of the property being cleaned
up. These considerations are extremely important at the
Grand Street Mercury Site because the Site is located in a
densely populated residential community. In the case of
the Grand Street Mercury She, EPA has reviewed overall
planning and zoning trends in Hoboken, has interviewed
the Hoboken Business Administration Office, and has
conducted numerous community interviews to determine
trends for ultimate end use in Hoboken.
   EPA's review revealed thar Hoboken has been undergo-
ing significant changes in the prior two decades, changing
 from a pnmari'y commercial and industrial area, 10 one of
 many single-family and multiple-family dwellings and
 apartment complexes. City government has permitted a
 number of commercial to residential conversions in the
 area. The present zoning for the Site is R2, multifamily
 residential, with certain variances which permit the artists
 to work in the building. In addition. City government has
 indicated its desire to promote this trend to residential
property conversion and development within Hoboken.

   hi a resolution of May 21,1997, the Mayor and City
Council of Hoboken called on EPA to demolish or remove
 the building and restore the land at the Site.

   As a result, EPA believes that the most likely  end use
 for the properties at 720-730 Grand Street is residential.
 Accordingly, three  of the cleanup alternatives developed
 for the Site are consistent with residential end use. How-
ever, EPA also evaluated one alternative which would
 return the property  to commercial/industrial end use.
Summary of Remedial Alternatives

    CERCLA requires that each selected site remedy be
    protective of human health and the environment, be
cost-effective, comply with other statutory laws, and uti-
lize permanent solutions and alternative treatment tech-
nologies and resource recovery alternatives to the maxi-
mum extent practicable. 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 haz-
ardous substances.
   This Proposed Plan presents five alternatives for
addressing the contamination associated with the Site.
The alternatives are broken into four separate compo-
nents: the residents, the building, soil and ground water.
The "Construction Time" for each alternative reflects only
the time required to design (assumed to be 12 months for
Alternatives 2,3.4, and 5) and construct or implement the
remedy and does not include the  time required to negoti-
ate the performance of the remedy with the potentially
responsible party(ies), procure contracts for design and
construction, or to obtain permanent access to the Site.
No Operation and Maintenance (O&M—see footnote at
Table 3) costs are calculated for Alternatives I and 5. as
each of these alternatives assumes no monitoring after the
work is completed. Detailed cost analyses can be found in
die FFS. Each of the five alternatives arc described belo*-
-------
                                                                         Grand Sireel Mercur\ Silt. Hoboken. .V>»- Jerse*
            Alternative I: No Action

Residents: No Action
Building: No Action
Soil: No Action
Ground Water: No Action
Time to Implement: 0 Months
Item
Building Maintenance &. Relocation
Total Cost
          $0
          SO
CERCLA and the NCP require that the "No Action" alter-
native be considered as a baseline for comparison with
other alternatives. The No Action alternative does not
include implementation of active remedial measures for
on-site mercury contamination. Temporary relocation of
prior residents, site security and building maintenance of
the Site would cease.
   This alternative, if selected, would result in contami-
nants remaining on the Site in air and soil at concentra-
tions above health-based levels. Therefore, under
CERCLA, the Site would have to be reviewed every
five years.

     Alternative 2: Remediation of Building
       for Residential UselReoccupation
     by Bui/ding ResidentslSoil Remediation

Residents: Temporary Relocation of Residents
Building: Remediation for Residential Use for
Reoccupation by former residents
Soil: Sampling, Excavation, and Off-Site Disposal
Ground Water: Sampling and Analysis
Time to Implement: 46 Months
Item                                       CosJ
Building Maintenance & Relocation    $2,300.000
Building Remediation                  $4,368,000
Soil/Ground Water                    $  138,000
Interior Reconstruction                $2,975,000
O&M (discounted over 10 years}      + S   41.000
Total Present Worth Cost
= $9,822,000
This alternative would include the continuation of the
temporary relocation program for the prior building resi-
dents and the remediation of the building for reoccupation
by the prior residents. Remediation of the building would
include: conducting an asbestos survey; removing aH
reusable fixtures; gutting all improvements;  vacuuming
bulk mercury (e.g., pools of mercury and other sediments
found in the flooring) while methodically removing all
flooring layers; washing interior surfaces with detergents
and then with sulfur solutions which react with the mer-
cury to produce a less toxic form; heating the building
interior air to promote evaporation (volatilization) of mer-
cury adsorbed to surfaces;  filtering interior air to remove
mercury vapors; etching contaminated masonry surfaces;
and reconstructing the building's interior to their present
conditions. On-site sewers, floor drains, sumps, and sump
pits would be cleaned prior to removal (if necessary), and
wastes generated would be collected and containerized
on-site. AH waste/debris generated would be characterized
and disposed of off-site at EPA-approved facilities. Mer-
cury would be recovered and recycled wherever practical.

   Clearance monitoring of the interior air would be per-
formed monthly for one year after remediation to ensure
mercury levels remain below the remedial action objective
of 0.09 ug/m3 of mercury in air in the building. Inferior air
in the buildings would be monitored annually for mercury
vapors for 10 years following successful completion of
remediation to ensure that mercury vapor levels remaia
below EPA risk-based concentrations. Should mercury
vapors exceed EPA levels, EPA would consider the rem-
edy to have failed, would evacuate die building, and
would consider relocation options for affected parties.

   Additional discrete sampling of off site soil as well as
soil under the asphalt parking lot and under the building
foundation would be conducted. Soil with average mer-
cury concentrations (at the  same depth interval) above 23
mg/kg under the parking lot would be excavated and dis-
posed of off-site at EPA-approved facilities. Groundwatcr
samples would be collected and analyzed to determine die
extent to which mercury contamination  in soil at the Site
has impacted groundwater quality. Identification of
groundwater and/or off-site soil contamination may war-
rant further study by EPA. The excavated areas would be
backfilled  with clean soil.

   If sampling under the foundation indicates that mer-
cury contamination remains under the building in soil or
ground water, institutional controls would be put in place
on the property to prevent breaching of the foundation and*
contact with the contamination. If mercury remains under
the foundation at concentrations above health-based lev-
:ls, under CERCLA, the Site would have to be
reviewed every five years.
-------
 Superfund Proposid Plan
   Alternative 3: Remediation of Building for
   Resident/a/ Use/Permanent Relocation  of
      Bui/ding Residents/Soil Remediation

Residents: Permanent Relocation of Residents
Building: Remediation for Residential Use
Soil: Sampling, Excavation, and Off-SJie Disposal
Ground Water: Sampling and Analysis
Time to Implement: 40 Months
Item                                         Cost
Building Maintenance & Relocation   $ 10,853,000
Building Remediation                 $ 4,488.000
Soil/Ground Water                   $   138,000
O&M (discounted over 10 years)     + $    41,000
Real Estate Value                   -$ 2,423,000
 Total Present Worth Costs
= S 13,097,000
This alternative would include relocation of the prior
building residents into permanent housing. Temporary
relocation benefits would continue until permanent relo-
cation is achieved. Permanent relocation would consist of
the provision of relocation benefits to owners and occu-
pants of the Site, including: compensation for the prop-
erty to be acquired; moving and related expenses;
replacement housing assistance; and relocation advisory
services.

   The remediauon and clearance monitoring of the
building for residential use by new residents would be
performed as described in Alternative 2, except the build-
ing would only be reconstructed to bare interior walls and
finished floors. On-she sewers, floor drains, sumps, and
sump pits would be cleaned prior to removal (if neces-
sary), and wastes generated would be collected and con-
tainerized on-site. All waste/debris generated would be
characterized and disposed of off-site at EPA-approved
facilities. Mercury would be recovered and recycled wher-
ever practical. Interior air in the buildings would be moni-
tored annually for mercury vapors for 10 years following
successful completion of remediation to ensure that mer-
cury vapor levels remain below EPA risk-based concen-
trations. Should mercury vapors exceed EPA levels, EPA
would consider the remedy to have failed, would evacuate
the building, and would consider relocation
options for affected parties.

   Additional discrete sampling of off site soil as well as
of soil under the asphalt parking lot and under the build-
ing foundation would be conducted. Soil with average
mercury concentrations (at the same depth interval) above
23 mg/kg under the parking lot would be excavated and
disposed of off-site at EPA-approved facilities. Ground-
water samples would be collected and analyzed to deier-
mine the extent to which mercury contamination in soilai
the Si'e has impacted ground-ater quality. Identification of
groundwater and or off-site soil contamination may war-
rant further stud) by EPA. The excavated areas would be
backfilled with clean soil. If sampling under the founda-
tion indicates that mercury contamination remains under
the building, institutional controls would be put in place on
the property to prevent breaching of the foundation and
contact with the ccmamination.

   If mercury remains under the foundation at concentra-
tions above health-based levels, under CERCLA, the Site
would  have to be reviewed every five years. If the U.S.
Government conducts the property acquisition and perma-
nent relocation, after successful implementation of the
remedy, the property would be sold and monies generated
by the sale would offset those incurred to undertake the
remedy.

   Alternative 4: Remediation of Bui/ding for
         Industrial or  Commercial Use/
 Permanent Relocation of Building Residents/
                Soil Remediation

Residents: Permanent Relocation of Residents
Building: Remediation for Industrial or Commercial Use
SoO: Sampling, Excavation, and Off-Site Disposal
Ground Water: Sampling and Analysis
Time to Implement: 38 Months

Item                                        Csfi
Building Maintenance & Relocation    S10,853,000
Building Remediation                  S 3,742.000
Soil/Ground Water                    $   138,000
O&M (discounted over JO years)       + S    14.000
Real Estate Value                     -S  1.808.000
                     Total Present Worth Costs
                                   = 512,939.000
                     This alternative would include temporary and permanent
                     relocation of the prior building residents as described
                     above for Alternative 3. Whik the remediation would
                     include the same steps as outlined in Alternative 2, the
                     remedial action objective would be 0.44 jig/m3 of mercury
                     in air in the building, which is appropriate for industrial or
                     commercial uses. This remedial  action would include re-
                     moval of the flooring and washing of the masonry with
                     suffur solutions which react with the mercury to produce
                     a less toxic form On-site sewers, floor drains, sumps, and
                     sump pits would be cleaned pnor to removal (if neces-
                                                      K>
-------
                                                                            Grand Street Mercury Site. Hoboken. .Vr« lent*
                                     Table 2 • Evaluation  Criteria
    Overall protection of banian health and the environment
    addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection
    and describes how risks posed through each pathway are elimi-
    nated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering con-
    trols, or institutional controls.
    Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy will
    meet alt of the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
    of other federal and state environmental statutes and requirement*
    or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
    Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of
    a remedy to maintain protection of human health and the environ-
    ment once cleanup goals have been met
    Reduction of tonaty, mobility, or volume through treatment
    addresses the anticipated performance of the treatment technolo-
    gies a remedy may employ.
sary), and wastes generated would be collected and con-
tainerized on-site. All waste/debris generated would be
characterized and disposed of off-site at EPA-approved
facilities. Mercury would be recovered and recycled wher-
ever practical. The building would be reconstructed to
bare interior walls and finished floors. Interior air in the
buildings would be monitored biennially for mercury va-
pors for 10 years following successful completion of re-
mediation to ensure that mercury vapor levels remain be-
low EPA risk-based concentrations. Should mercury va-
pors exceed EPA levels, EPA would consider the remedy
to have failed, would evacuate the building, and would
consider relocation options for affected parties.

   Additional discrete sampling of off site soil as well as
of soil under the asphalt parking lot and under the build-
ing foundation would be conducted. Soil with average
mercury concentrations (at the same depth interval) above
23 mg/kg under the parking lot would be excavated and
disposed of off-site at EPA-approved facilities. Ground-
water samples would be collected .ind analyzed to deter-
mine the extent to which mercury contamination in soil at
the Site has impacted ground water quality. Identification
of groundwater and/or off-site soil contamination may
warrant further study by EPA. The excavated areas would
be backfilled with clean soil.  If sampling under the foun-
dation indicates that mercury contamination remains under
the building, institutional controls would be put in place on
the property to prevent breaching of the foundation.

   If mercury remains under the foundation at concentra-
tions above health-based levels, under CERCLA, the Site
would have to be reviewed every five years. If the U S.
Government conducts the property acquisition and perma-
nent relocation, after successful implementation of the
   Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to
   achieve protection from any adverse impacts on human health and
   the environment that may occur during the construction and imple-
   mentation period until cleanup goals are achieved.
   Implementabilitjr addresses the technical and administrative fea-
   sibility of a remedy, including the availability of materials and
   services needed to implement a particular option.'
   Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance
   costs, and net present worth costs.
   State acceptance indicates whether the State 'concurs, opposes.
   or has no comment on die preferred alternative.
   Community acceptance will be assessed in the  Record of Deci-
   sion following a review of the public comments received on the
   technical reports and the Proposed Flam.
remedy, the property would be sold and monies generated
by the sale would offset those incurred to undertake the
remedy.

     A/ternotira 5: Demolition of Buildingf
 Permanent Relocation of Building Residents/
                 Soil Remediation

Residents: Permanent Relocation of Residents
Building: Demolition of Building
Soil: Sampling, Excavation, and Off-Site Disposal
Ground Water: Sampling and Analysis
Time to Implement: 23 Months
Item                                           test
Building Maintenance A Relocation    S10.853.000
Building Demolition                   S 4.359.000
Soil/Ground Water                   + S   219.000
Real Estate Value                    -S 1.568.000
Total Present Worth Costs
= 513.863.000
This alternative would include temporary and permanent
relocation of the prior building residents as described
above for Alternative 3. The building and ;o*nhouse
would be demolished and debris would be disposed of at
EPA-approved facilities. Due to the high concentrations
of mercury in the' flooring, the flooring would be carefully
removed and disposed of off-site prior to the demolition,
as described in Alternative 2. On-site sewers, floor drains.
sumps, and sump pits would be cleaned prior to removal
(if necessary), and wastes generated would be collected
and containerized on-site. All waste/debris generated
would be characterized  anil  disposed of off-site at EPA-
approved facilities. Mercury would be recovered! and
                                                        11
-------
 recycled wherever practical. Based upon an evaluation,
 the foundation of the building would be removed.

   Additional discrete sampling of off sr.e soil as well as
 of soil under the asphalt parking lot and under the build-
 ing foundation would be conducted. Soil with average
 mercury concentrations (at the same depth interval) above
 23 mg/kg under the parking lot and foundation would be
 excavated and disposed of off-site at EPA-approved facili-
 ties. Groundwater samples would be collected and ana-
 lyzed to determine the extent to which mercury contami-
 nation in soil at the Site has impacted groundwater qual-
 ity. Identification of groundwater and/or off-site soil con-
 tamination may warrant further study by EPA. The exca-
 vated areas would be backfilled with clean soil. If the U.S.
 Government conducts the property acquisition and perma-
 nent relocation, after successful implementation of the
 remedy, the property would be sold and monies generated
 by the sale would offset those incurred to undertake the
 remedy.
Evaluation of Alternatives

    As stated previously, CERCLA requires that each selec-
    ted site remedy be protective of human health and the
environment, be cost-effective, comply with other statu-
tory laws, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies and resource recovery alternatives
to the maximum extent practicable. The statute includes a
preference  for the use of treatment as a principal element
for the reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of the
hazardous substances.

   During the detailed evaluation of alternatives, each
alternative  is assessed against nine evaluation criteria:
overall protection of human health and the environment;
compliance with ARARs; long-term effectiveness and
permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume
through treatment; short-term effectiveness; implementa-
bility; cost; and state and community acceptance. The
evaluation criteria (identified in boldfaced type) are de-
scribed in Table 2. A comparative analysis of these alter-
natives based upon the nine evaluation criteria follows.

Overall Protect/on of Human Health
and the Environment

An air-dispersion model was used by EPA immediately
after determining the extent of mercury contamination at
the Site which showed that under a "worst-case" scenario.
a Trre in the building could result in high lerels of mercury
 being released into the atmosphere. Therefore, in the
 shon-term, in order to minimize the potential risk of a fire
 at the Site and exposure to airborne mercury. EPA has
 improved the sprinkler system and connected the build-
 ing's electronic fire alarm directly to a central fire station
 The electronic fire alarm is tested frequently. While these
 actions minimize the potential release of mercury by
 minimizing the risk of fire, they do not preclude the possi-
 bility of fire and therefore are not fully protective of
 human health and the environment.

   Mercury contamination at the Site continues to pose a
 potential risk to the health of human building residents
 through two primary pathways in addition to the fire sce-
 nario; inhalation of mercury in air in the existing building
 and ingestion of mercury-contaminated soil. EPA requires
 that each cleanup alternative eliminate, reduce, or control
 the risks posed by these two pathways.

   Alternative I. Is o Action, would not be protective of
 human health and the environment because the building
 would remain in its current condition. Risks of exposure
 to mercury vapors due to fire or inhalation of interior air
 would remain. Reoccupation of the building would once
 again threaten the health of building residents by exposure
to mercury vapors in air at concentrations above risk-
 based levels, which is unacceptable. Alternative  1, No
 Action, has been eliminated from consideration and will
not be discussed further because it is not protective of
 human health and the environment.

   While the building is being cleaned up. Alternatives 2,
 3, and 4 would eliminate the risk to former occupants by
dissociating them from the Site (temporarily in the case of
Alternative 2 and permanently in the cases of Alternatives
3 and 4), thus eliminating the inhalation pathway. After
building remediation is complete. Alternatives 2, 3. and 4,
provided they are successfully implemented (see discus-
 sion of long-term effectiveness below), would reduce the
risks from exposure to mercury in the air in the building.
 However, there is considerable uncertainty whether these
 Alternatives can meet this criterion over the  long term.
 After soil excavation is complete. Alternatives 2, 3. and 4
 would eliminate the future risk associated with children
potentially ingesting mercury-contaminated soil in the
parking lot area. Any risks due to contamination remain-
 ing under the foundation would be restricted by  institu-
 tional controls.

   Because Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would each expose
 workers to mercury vapors, continuous air monitoring
 would be performed to ensure that all work occurred in
 a safe environment Should mercury vapor levels exceed
-------
                                                                           Grand Street Mercury Silf. Hoboken. Sev Jrrsrr
                                                     Table 3
                        Cost Comparison of the Remedial Alternatives
#•• :.T "•-••"' -^8R. Tine to Capital Cost Total Ptumi
ALTERNATIVE ^^' Complete1 Esrimafr O&MCnsf WtrthCost -
1: No Action
2' Rrnirdia.non of Ruildinj for Residential
UsWRcoccupaPoo by PT"1^TPJ Rnidnm
3: Rrmrdiarioo of Bnflifing for Residential
usc/miu(he project by EPA. Ike
      I IcBftb of nne 10 complex the icmcdul ICDOB and catx b»c becB
      L lanes MCiade a I2-raomfa desifa pehodl
"0AM BCUD •Openbcm and Maintenance.' bd«des cosa for samplnf after
d»r irmcdul effon to enuic soccest. Tfceir vouU be ao O&M coat far Aher-
•atncs I aid 5. OAM cons for AtleraaovB 2.3. and 4 have beca diicouaKd
••era (0-»ear period (bOowiaf cocnplctma of the deamy.
     I Wonh'Caas: The sntoam of moacy that wonld have a be mooted
                t in order 10 bavc appropriate funds avauabte a tae
                     i is inolenemed. A me
ikene COBS is pnmdcd in ihe precedni{ xecions dcscnbinf each
•Costs far peraaneni idocabon consia of purchase of tinag spaces and coo-
                                               ipark-
      burd oa EPA appraisal rainmrv condnoed • 1996. and are aot
health-based standards, measores would be taken to
reduce the levels and/or provide protective equipment to
(he workers. Additionally, because all*vaste/defaris and
contaminated soils generated under Alternatives 2. 3.4,
and 5 would be disposed of at EPA-approved facilities,
future contact with that material would be controlled.

   Alternative 5 meets this criterion since it would elimi-
nate the risk to former occupants by dissociating them
from the Site permanently, thus eliminating the inhalation
pathway and would eliminate all future risks since demo-
lition would eliminate the air exposure pathway and the
risk of fire and release to the surrounding community.
After soil excavation is complete. Alternative 5 would
eliminate the future risk associated with ingesting mer-
cury-contaminated soil at the Site.

Compliance  with Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)

Actions taken at any Superfund site must  meet all appli-
cable or relevant and appropriate requirements of federal
and state law or provide grounds for invoking a waiver of
these requirements. Alternatives 2, 3.4. and 5 would com-
ply with ARARs. Major ARARs are briefly described*
bdo*

   The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
is a federal law thai mandates procedures for treating.
transporting, storing, and disposing of hazardous sub-
stances. All portions of RCRA which are applicable or
relevant and appropriate to the proposed remedy for the
Site wou.d be met by the alternatives. Construction debris
would be jenerated at Lie Site during building remedia-
tion or demolition and all or pan of that construction
debris may be a hazardous waste as denned bn. RCRA. As
a hazardous -vaste. construction debris may be subject to
the Land Disposal Restrictions under RCRA. Wastes gen-
erated would be characterized (if applicable) ^nd disposed
of in accordance with RCRA and New Jersey's delegated
hazardous waste program requirements.

   The Clean Air Act is a federal law which sets national
standards and regulations for controlling air pollution.
Removal of interior components of the building may
release liquid elemental mercury, which may. in  turn.
volatilize and constitute a point-source emission under the
Clean Air ACL The Clean Air Act also includes standards
for builcing demolition and renovation, which require the
                                                       13
-------
 Saptrfund Proposed Plan
removal of all friable asbesios pnor 10 demolition. All of
the alternatives would be designed to comply with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act.

   The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, which provides regula-
tions and guidance for the government in conducting relo-
cation activities where property is acquired, is not an
environmental law but would have bearing on Alternatives
3,4, and 5, which involve permanent relocation. The Act
provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons
displaced from their homes by federal programs. All por-
tions of the Act which are applicable to the proposed rem-
edy for the Site would be met by the alternatives.

   The Site history gives an indication tiwt the She may
have some historic significance. In compliance with the
National Historic Preservation Act, a Stage LA Cultural
Resources Survey would be conducted.

Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

This criterion reflects the ability of each alternative to
meet remedial action objectives in the future and also
reflects the degree of certainty that the alternative will
prove successful. The analysis of how each alternative
meets this criterion is especially critical for the Grand
Street Mercury Site since four of the five alternatives
evaluated would result in preservation of the building
structure, meaning that future occupants could be exposed
to residua] contamination.

   Alternative 5, since it includes demolition and off-site
disposal of the building  and removal of contaminated soil,
provides the highest  degree of certainty that the remedia-
tion will be successful. There will be no possibility  of
future residents or workers being exposed to any residua]
mercury contamination in the building and soil since all
mercury contamination above health-based levels would
be removed.

   Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide a much lower
degree of certainty that the alternative will prove success-
ful after implementation as it is unknown whether residual
mercury contamination in the building structure could re-
sult in levels above the cleanup objective of 0.09 ug/m3
This means that Alternatjve 2 could result in  former  resi-
dents remaining in temporary relocation for up to four
years with no assurance  that the building would be inhabit-
*ble at the end of that time. Further, mercury contamina-
tion, though  presumed to be primarily concentrated in
flooring materials, has been detected in all areas and build-
io£ components of the Site, including flooring, brick.
 wooden support materials, roofing materials, interior soil/
 sediments and in exterior on- and off-site soils. Since mer-
 cury has adhered to minute pore spaces throughout ihe
building structure, there would always be the potential for
^exposure. Therefore, even if the cleanup objective of 0.09
og/m' were me: at the end of the building remediation
phase, it would be impossible to ensure without long-term
«ionitonng that there would be no future risk associated
with residual contamination in the building structure. Such
monitoring would  not be practical in a residential building.
   Alternative 4 would provide a higher degree of cer-
tainty that the alternative will prove successful after
implementation since the industrial/commercial cleanup
Standard is 0.44 ug/m3. As with Alternatives 2 and 3, it
would be impossible to ensure without monitoring that
there would be  no future risk associated with residual
contamination in the building structure.
   For all of the Alternatives, mercury would be recov-
ered and recycled to the extent  practicable from all waste
streams thereby minimizing the amount of waste and con-
tamination iandfiliec, and all remaining waste would be
characterized and shipped off-site using appropriately
licensed transporters for treatment or disposal at an appro-
priately permitted  landfill(s).

Reduction  of Toxicfty, Mobility,
or Volume Through Treatment

With the exception of Alternative I, all of the alternatives
would meet this criterion. The remediation alternatives
(Alternatives 2, 3,  and 4) would capture the bulk of mer-
cury contamination in the building and would treat and
remove remaining  residual mercury in porous surfaces,
thereby minimizing the volume and mobility of mercury
contamination at the Site. The demolition alternative
(Alternative 5) would capture, treat, recover, dispose of,
or contain all mercury contamination in the building,
thereby minimizing the toxicity, mobility, and volume of
mercury contamination at the Site.
   ATI of the alternatives would include recovery of mer-
cury, treatment  of applicable waste streams, and disposal
of wastes at appropriately permitted off-site facilities to
ensure overall reduction of toxicity.

Short-Term Effectiveness

With the exception of Alternative 1, all of the alternatives
provide a high degree of short-term effectiveness for the
prior occupants of the Site since each alternative  includes
-------
                                                                                  Grand Street Mercurv Site. Hoboken, New Jersey
                                                      Glossary
  Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs):
  Requirements which dictate how a site will be cleaned up. EPA must
  evaluate existing federal and state regulations which affect the way
  EPA can undertake activities, such as removal, demolition, transport,
  disposal, and storage of contaminated materials, at a Superfund site.
  These requirements can be waived for a particular site by EPA.

  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
  Liability Act (CERCLA): Also known as Superfund. this law
  authorizes the federal government to respond directly to releases of
  hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the envi-
  ronment. EPA is responsible for managing Superfund.

  Focused Feasibility Study (FFS): An abbreviated study that devel-
  ops and analyzes alternatives for cleaning up a hazardous waste site.
  Hazardous Wastes: Wastes exhibiting any of the following charac-
  teristics: ignitability. corrosivity. reactivity, or toxiciry. EPA and the
  State of New Jersey have listed as hazardous other wastes that may
  also exhibit these characteristics, but are so dangerous that they are
  regulated regardless of their parameters. Although the legal defini-
  tion of hazardous waste is complex, the term generally refers to wastes
  that EPA or the State have identified as posing a threat :o human
  health and the environment if managed improperly. Federal and state
  regulations set stria controls on the management of hazardous wastes.

  Mercury: A silver-white metal that is liquid at ordinary tempera-
  tures. Long-term exposure to mercury may cause damage to the cen-
  tral nervous system and the kidneys. At the Grand Street Mercury
  Site, mercury was used to make mercury vapor lamps.
  Mercury Vapor Lamp: Mercury vapor lamps, used primarily for
  industrial and commercial purposes, contain liquid mercury which
  emits light when subjected to an electrical current.
National Contingency Plan (NCP): The federal regulation that guides
the implementation of the Superfund program.

Petroleum Hydrocarbons: Hydrocarbons are the components which
make up oil-based products such as gasoline and fuel oil.

Potentially Responsible Party(ies): An individual(s) or company (ies)
(such as owners, operators, transporters, or generators) potentially
responsible for contributing to  the contamination problem at a
Superfund site. Whenever possible. EPA requires potentially respon-
sible parties, through administrative and legal actions, to clean up •
hazardous waste sites they have contaminated

Remediate, Remediation or Remedial Action: A series of steps taken
to construct or implement a remedy that will reduce or eliminate risks
to human health and the environment posed by a Superfund site.
Removal Action: An immediate action taken over roe short-term to
address a release or threatened release of hazardous substances.
Examples of removal actions include testing and removing leaking
drums; erecting a fence to secure an area: placing a temporary cap
over contaminated material: and.  in this case, providing temporary
relocation to displaced building residents.
Superfand: The common name used  for the Comprehensive Envi-
ronmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act of  1984
(CERCLA). the federal  law which mandate cleanup of abandoned
hazardous waste sites.
X-Ray Fluorescence: A contamination identification technique used
in the field which uses X-Ray radiation to identify the presence of
heavy metals (including mercury, lead and other toxic metals). A
sample is irradiated with X-Rays. and then each element in the sample
re-emits X-Rays in a unique pattern. Based on the intensity of each
unique pattern, heavy metals can be identified, and the concentra-
tions of those metals can be estimated.
temporary/permanent relocation to immediately dissociate
residents from contamination at the Site. The time to
demolish the building once design is complete and access
* obtained under Alternative 5 is 11 months. The time to
remediate the building once design is complete and access
is obtained for Alternatives 2. 3, and 4 is 14 to 16 months,
though each would also require at least 12 months of
clearance monitoring so that the time to actual reuse of
the property is significantly greater than the time it would
take to demolish the building.

   However, Alternative 5 would likely present a much
greater impact to the surrounding community than Alter-
natives 2, 3, and 4. The primary potential health and
cross-media impacts associated -*ith Alternative 5 would
be increased mercury vapor, dust, and noise generation
during building demolition. These would be minimized
through the use of measures which would be undertaken
to ensure that all activities are  performed in such a way
that vapors, dust, debris, and other materials are not
released to the surrounding community. For instance,
careful attention would be paid to ensure that workers are
fully protected from mercury exposure during the reme-
dial or demolition effort, and that the building is secured
and work space maintained under negative pressure to
ensure minimization of off-site releases.

   EPA recognizes that a significant increase in noise
levels due to remediation, demolition, and/or transporta-
tion activities may occur under Alternatives 2, 3,  4  and 5.
EPA will take precautionary measures to minimize noise
levels due to construction activities to the extent practi-
cable, and will design transportation flow  patterns to
minimize traffic impacts on residential areas. EPA  will
provide advance notice of remedial activities co the local
community.
                                                            15
-------
 Siiperfurul Proposed Plan
/mp/ementob///ty

Implementabiiity addresses an analysis cf the technical
and administrative feasibility of a remedy and the avail-
ability of services and materials needed to implement a
particular alternative. Alternative 5 affords the highest
degree of implementabilin in that it  is technically feasible
and would require a minimal amount of administrative
coordination to complete. Demolition and excavation ser-
vices are widely available although considerations for
worker safety and maintenance of workspace under nega-
tive pressure would likely narrow the list of potential con-
tractors. Administratively. Alternative 5 would involve
consideration of the National Historic Preservation Act
which may require extensive documentation of the build-
ing prior to demolition.

   Since Alternative 5 would include demolition of the
town house, careful attention would have to be paid to
ensuring the structural integrity of the adjacent property at
718 Grand Street, as the townhouse is physically adjoined
to the adjacent property.

   Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 each raise  implementability
concerns due to uncertainties associated with technical
feasibility as well as securing contractors capable of
implementing the required remedial technologies. Based
on EPA's review of the literature, remediation to the reme-
dial action objectives specified in this document has not
been recorded in the past. Further, in the case of Alterna-
tives 2 and 3, the remedial action objective of 0.09 ug/m3
is very close to  the detection limit (0.05 ug/m3) for the
EPA-approved analytical method, potentially adding some
uncertainty to the interpretation of analytical results.
Additionally, the prior occupants have expressed to EPA
that they may be unwilling to move back into the build-
ing, even after remediation is successfully completed.
Finally, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would require close coor-
dination with several entities, including ATSDR, the
Hoboken Health Department, the Hudson Regional
Health Commission, and the New Jersey Department of
Health, in order to get their concurrence on reuse of the
building after the conclusion of the remedial effort.

   The implememabilhy of Alternative 4 is also problem-
atic in that the City of Hoboken has presently zoned the
Site as R2, multifamiiy residential, with certain variances
which permit artists to work in the building. In addition,
City government has indicated its desire to promote resi-
dential property conversion and development within
Hoboken, and has voiced objections to a return of the
property to commercial/industrial zoning.
Cost

The cost estimates associated with the alternatives are
summarized in Table 3. Alternative 2 is the lowest-cosi,
protective alternative with a present worth cost of $9.8
million. The next three alternatives are substantially more
expensive wiih present worth costs of SI 3.1 million for
Altername 3. $12.9 million for Alternative 4, and $13.9
million for Alternative 5. Permanent relocation costs, near
$10 million, accoun: for the bulk of the costs for Alterna-
tives 3, 4, and 5.

State Acceptance

EPA has developed this Proposed Plan in consultation
with NJDEP, which has indicated that it concurs with the
preferred alternative presented in this Proposed Plan.

Community Acceptance

Community acceptance of the preferred alternative will be
assessed in the Record of Decision following review of
the public comments received on the Focused Feasibility
Study and on the Proposed Plan.
Preferred Alternative

   Based upon the results of the Focused Feasibility Study
   and after careful consideration of the various alterna-
tives presented earlier, EPA recommends Alternative 5,
Demolition of the Building/Permanent Relocation of the
Building Residents/Soil Sampling. Excavation, and Off-
Site Disposal/Groundwater Sampling and Analysis, as the
preferred alternative for the Site. Specifically, the preferred
alternative would involve permanent relocation of the prior
building residents. Temporary relocation benefits  would
continue until permanent relocation is achieved. Perma-
nent relocation would consist of the provision of reloca-
tion benefits to owners and occupants of the Site, includ-
ing: compensation for the property to be acquired: mov-
ing and related expenses; replacement housing assistance;
and relocation advisory services.
   The building and townhouse would be demolished and
debris would be disposed of off-siie. Due to the high con-
centration of mercury in the flooring, the flooring would
be methodically removed, as described in Alternative 2
and segregated. On-site sewers, floor drains, sumps, and
sump pits would be cleaned prior to removal (if neces-
sary), and wastes generated would be collected and con-
-------
                                                                          Grand Street Mercury Site. Hobokrn, New Jersey
tainehzed on-site. All waste/debris generated would be
characterized and disposed of off-site at EPA-approved
facilities- Mercury would be recovered and recycled wher-
ever practical. Based upon an evaluation, the foundation
would be removed.

   Additional discrete sampling of soil under the asphalt
parking lot and under the building foundation would be
conducted. Soil with average mercury concentrations (at
the same depth interval) above 23 mg/kg under the park-
ing lot and foundation would be excavated and disposed
of off-site at EPA-approved facilities. The excavated areas
would be backfilled with clean soil to the present level of
the parking lot and adjacent sidewalks. If the U.S. Gov-
ernment conducts the property acquisition and permanent
relocation, after successful implementation of the remedy,
the property would be sold and monies generated by the
sale would offset those incurred to undertake the remedy.
Six soil samples would be collected from under the park-
ing lot and foundation which would be analyzed for all
Superfund Target Compounds (organics) and Superfund
Target Analytes (metals) anJ for Total Petroleum Hydro-
carbons.

   A minimum of two groundwater samples would be
collected and analyzed to determine the extent to which
mercury contamination in soil at the Site has impacted
groundwater quality. Identification of groundwater and/or
off-site soil contamination may warrant further study by
EPA. A well search may also be conducted to determine
groundwater quality in the surrounding area with respect
to mercury.

   The preferred alternative would be the most protective
of human health and the environment because mercury
contamination in the buildings would be permanently
eliminated by a demolition effort. Demolition would
eliminate any uncertainties posed by the remediation
alternatives regarding exposure to residual contamination
•n pore spaces of the building structure.

   The preferred alternative would achieve ARARs more
quickly with no uncertainty of future exposure, and at a
comparable cost to the other options involving permanent
relocation. The preferred alternative would enable EPA to
move the former building residents into permanent  hous-
ing in the shortest time possible. In addition, the preferred
alternative would allow for future residential use of the
property, consistent with current and projected future land
use patterns in Hoboken. Therefore, the preferred alterna-
tive would provide the best balance of trade-offs among
alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria. EPA
believes that the preferred alternative is protective of
human health and the environment, complies with federal
and state requirements that are legally applicable or rele-
vant and appropriate to the remedial action, is cost-effec-
tive, and utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treat-
ment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent possible.
Next Steps
    After EPA has presented the preferred alternative at the
    public meeting and has received any comments and
questions during the public comment period, EPA wiH
summarize the comments and provide its responses in a
document called the "Responsiveness Summary.** Tile
Responsiveness Summary will be appended to the Record
of Decision, which will describe the final alternative selec-
ted by EPA and provide EPA's rationale for that selection.*
          Mailing  List Addition*

  If you know of someone who is not receiving information
  and would -ike to be place J on the mailing list for the Grand
  Street Mercury Site, call Ms. Pat Seppi at (212) 637-3679 or
  (201) 783-1765, email her at seppi.pat@epamaiiepa.gov
  or fill out and mail this form to:

                    Ms. Pat Seppi
            Community Relations Coordinator
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    290 Broadwav. 26th Floor,  New York. NY 10007-1866
  Name.
 Address.
  Telephone.

  Affiliation.
                                                      17
-------
                           APPENDIX B

                         PUBLIC NOTICES

These Public Notices were published in the Jersey Journal and Hoboken Reporter
newspapers to announce the public meetings and extension of the public comment period.
-------
                                  x°xEPA
      THE UNHID  SIAIIS  ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTION  AC.ENCY
                          INMHS PUBLIC COMMFNT ON im
      PROPOSED CLEANUP or THE GRAND  STREET MERCURY SITE
                            HOKOKEN, NEW JERSEY
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites the public to comment on its pro-
   posed plan for relocating the prior residents of a building and for cleaning up mercury
contamination in two buildings and in the soil at the Grand Street Mercury Site, 720-732 Grand
St., Hoboken, New Jersey. EPA will  accept comments during a public comment period that
begins on July 9 and ends on August 7, 1997. EPA will consider all comments received during
the public comment period and at the July 16 public meeting before selecting a final remedy.
Written comments may be submitted to the following address:

     John Hansen, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866
EPA evaluated the following alternatives for the site:
• Alternative 1: No Action
• Alternative 2: Remediation of Buildings for Resi-
  dential Use/Reoccupation by Building Residents/
  Sampling, Excavation, and Off-Site Disposal of
  Contaminated Soil/Ground-Water-Investigation
• Alternative 3: Remediation of Buildings for Resi-
  dential Use/Permanent Relocation of Building
  Residents/Sampling, Excavation, and Off-Site Dis-
  posal of Contaminated Soil/Ground-Water Inves-
  tigation
• Alternative 4: Remediation of Buildings for Indus-
  trial or Commercial Use/Permanent Relocation
  of Building Residents/Sampling, Excavation, and
  Off-Site Disposal of Contaminated Soil/Ground-
  Water Investigation
• Alternative 5: Demolition of Buildings/Permanent
  Relocation of Building Residents/Sampling, Exca-
  vation, and Off-Site Disposal  of Contaminated
  Soil/Ground-Water Investigation

Based upon the result of the Focused Feasibility Study
and after careful consideration of the various alter-
natives, EPA recommends Alternative 5, Demolition
of the Buildings/Permanent Relocation of the Build-
ing Residents/Sampling, Excavation, and Off-Site
Disposal of Contaminated Soil/Ground-Water Inves-
tigation. Permanent relocation would consist of the
provision of relocation benefits to owners and occu-
pants of the Site, including: compensation for the
property  to be acquired, moving and related ex-
penses; replacement  housing assistance;  and relo-
cation advisory services. Following completion of the
property acquisition, flooring would be methodically
removed from the building to collect and isolate the
majority of contamination, the building would be
demolished, and all debris would  be treated and/or
disposed of off-site. Additional soil sampling would
be conducted and soils containing mercury above
health-based levels would be excavated, character-
ized, and disposed of off-site. After all significantly
contaminated soil is removed, the site would be back-
filled to street grade. Ground-water samples would
be collected to determine if the Site  has impacted
ground-water quality.

For More Information. Complete analysis of the alter-
natives listed above are presented in the Focused
Feasibility Study and Proposed Plan. These and other
related documents can be reviewed at the following
locations:
           Hoboken Public Library
     500 Park Avenue, Hoboken, NJ 07030
      Hours: Mon, Wed, and Fri, 9am-5pm,
          Tues and Thurs, 9am-8pm
     U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency
   Records Center, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10007-1866
           By Appt: 212-637-4308
                        MARK YOUR
                         CALENDAR:
                  Public Meeting
               My 16,1997 at 7pm
              Hoboken High School
-------
                              f/EPA
       THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         ANNOUNCES AN EXTENSION or
                      Tur PUBLIC COMMENT PiKIOD ON THI
       PROPOSED CLEANUP or THE GRAND STREET MERCURY SHE
                        IN HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has extended the public comment peri-
    od on the proposed cleanup plan for the Grand Street Mercury Site in Hoboken, New
Jersey. The public comment period, which began on July 9 and was scheduled to end on
August 7, has been extended an additional 30 days to September 8, 1997, at the request of
members of the public. Comments on EPA's proposed cleanup plan must be received no
later than September 8, 1997, to be considered in EPA's final decision. Comments maybe
sent to:

    John Hansen, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
               290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866

EPA's proposed  remedy involves: demolition of the buildings at 720 and 722-732 Grand
Street; permanent relocation of prior building residents; sampling, excavation, and off-site
disposal  of contaminated soil from  beneath the asphalt parking lot; and an investigation to
assess the quality of the groundwater beneath the site.

A complete analysis of EPA's proposed remedy, as well as other cleanup alternatives EPA
considered, are presented in the Focused Feasibility Study and Proposed Plan. These and
other site-related documents can be reviewed at the following locations:
        Hoboken Public Library
  500 Park Avenue, Hoboken, NJ 07030
      Summer Hours: Mon., Wed.,
          and Fri., 9am-5pm
       Tues. and Thurs., 9am-8pm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
          Records Center
     290 Broadway, 18th Floor
     New York, NY 10007-1866
      By Appt: 212-637-4308
For more information about the Grand Street Mercury Site, please call John Hansen at
212-637-3915 or Pat Seppi, Community Relations Coordinator, at 212-637-3679 or 201-
783-1765.
-------
                            APPENDIX C
                           SIGN-IN CARDS
These cards were signed by people who attended the public meeting on July 16, 1997.
-------
             REGION  2
NAME (First)   I feLfcXA	(Last).

STREET  1 VYAVlP   V>QX ii-f
CITY
                                 STATE      ^     ZIP
PHONE    (Work)_

         (Fax)_
ORGANIZATION
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?            YES          NO
                                                            r -*7

 ^""<\
I &, \    REGION  2
                                                    O
-------
X" *%
        \
             REGION  2
             N«wJ«rMy. NewYortc,
NAME (First)_




STREET   ^V O
CITY
PHONE
(Work).




(Fax)_
ORGANIZATION
                                  i. U.S. Virgin Islands
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?
                                           r *^
                                             ~D
                                    (Home)
                                    (E-mail)
                                  STATE  f*S\    ZIP O7^>^
                                     YES
                                                             A.
                                         NO     A
          '!   REGION  2
          >    New Jersey, New Yortc, Puerto Rico, U.S Virgin Islands
 NAME (First).
           c
           - J&T i ^ A.
 STREET     - ti C




 CITY
 PHONE    (Work).




          (Fax)_
 ORGANIZATION
                        _(Last).
                          STATE
                                     _(Home)_
                                                      ZIP
                               \ ^
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?
                                      YES
                                          NO
-------
               REGION   2
               N«wJ«fMy, NewYo*, Putrto Rico, U.S. Virgin Istexto
              • '       /                   "^
NAME (First) N icoiP  '	(Last)  b^ALLt.i

                 0         /        j
STREET   fyd{    A-47CC   A-^^~   _A-rf
CTTY  AC (. ~H -<* rosA	STATE	



                                              -1
 PHONE    fWork)
          (Fax)	(E-mail)_
 ORGANIZATION	



 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?              \V$>/^.	 NO
          \
\ •^y|4^' ^    New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
 NAME ^                         aast)


 STPF.FT  /^^/
 CITY      l>C     t >" _ STATE  ~         ZIP






 PHONE    rw^2(.V
           (Pax)
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?              YES  f - _ NO
-------
          \    REGION  2
         £    New Jeraey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
NAME (First)  ///V	


STREET J^T>   TQcfa. rrt 5

	   ,/ sy   /^>-  I
CITY
PHONE
                   /-
          (Tax) ^^» / -
ORGANIZATION f ?/T(l/  0

Do You Wish to Make a Sutement?
                                      STATE
                                                          ZIP
                                        (E-mail)
                                         YES
                                                        NO
X
               New Jersey, New YorK Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
NAME (First) X


STREET


CITY  H
                                    (Last)
                                          C ft nT e Ltil
                                      STATE K.'^
                                                          ZIP
PHONE     (Work)


           (Fax)
                                        CHome)   T
                                                   -  C5"J "
                                        (E-mail)
ORGANIZATION
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?
                                         YES   \

                                                        NO
-------
(&}   REGION  2
             New J«rMy. N«w York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
 NAME (First),




 STREET
 CITY   /^fPTeftv^	STATE
 PHONE    (WoA) (2 / NewJerse
NAME (First) N. V f &
STREET  ,'K,^" ' '
• i I u (^ 1
{ TV, STATE' I' ^ W /P/OAp^/?^
(Home) "/ -7^~^ ^ 7^/
(E-mail)
/ !-\ , . -^V^/ * yV
  Do You Wish to Make a Statement?            YES	 NO
-------
 X"
          \   REGION   2
         .
V        0*    N«w J«rMy, New YorK Puerto Rico. U.S. Virgin Island*
          S
NAME (Tint)     I\J 2>llr)Q.f\~	(Last)	
                                                           s£
 STREET

 CITY
                      Crf /-A	STATE    A/.T"     ZIP  077o

                                           i^oA
 PHONE    (Work) (T17 J ,< X / - / <£_ S4.     (Home
                 —  /
           (Fax)	(E-mail).

                                   ft
 ORGANIZATION
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?              YES   i/_	 NO
                REGION   2
                New Jersey. New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
             O                            (^~
NAME (First)   CV^J-Wy^	(Last)    v	O	

STREET     \ Tb    S^^^LS-cy:    J> t~	

CITY      \  d v ^c -1   C - ^ N	STATE  /V J	ZIP   L }^
                  s        ,}             -	
              /Hil^LjLi1  " n - f     "'---''   \~  ~'~  C
 PHONE    (Work    1 ^   , /•   ~ >-~>(-     fHome)
           (Fax) .V     -- "   I1-^N      (E-mail) — -'  ~ - > C •' ^ •-•*. -<  r
 ORGAMZATION
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?              YES	—     NO
-------
($&}    REGION  2
 NAME (Ft




 STREET ^73
 CITY  MJC^	STATE






 PHONE    (Weak)	
                                  _(E-mail)_
 ORGANIZATION
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?            YES	 NO
         \   REGION  2
              New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
  NAME (First)   I ^ I /
  CITY        H
-------
              REGION   2
              N«w Jvwy, New York. PiMrto Rico, U.S. Virgin Island*
NAME (First)_

STREET  /P^. >/ Qloont /y^/c/   -S
CITY   rw*^"	STATE   /"  J      ZIP

                        V9-
PHONE    (Work)  ^' f-^v ' ~r	(Home)_
         (Fax)	(E-mail)_
ORGANIZATION
      **»
          1   REGION  2
 NAME (First)  / I\MV^	          (Last)	/
               i!^iL-jl        ~t
 STREET
 CITY    ,>Jli \K- JJK^W^	STATE YL{
 PHONE    (Work)	(Home)_
          (Fax)	(E-mail)_
 ORGANIZATION
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?              YES           NO
              New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?             YES	        NO
-------
 jS-)   REGION  2
             New Jersey. New Yw*. Puerto Rtoo, U.S. Vktfn Itiwids
 PHONE    (Work)  -># A 7 Vlf ~

          (Fax)
                                    (Home) ^C/ /~7
ORGANIZATION
Do You Wish to Make i Statement?
                                      YES
                                                  NO
*
I

NAME (First)

STREET

CITY
             New Jersey. New Yortc, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
ORGANIZATION
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?
                                Oast)   T>xC
 PHONE    rWork^  ^Cl'^-ZZ. 2^1
          (Pax)
                                   STATE
                                    (Home)
                                      YES
                                                    ZIP 0
                                                  NO.
-------
              REGION   2
                                 Rto. U.S.
CITY
PHONE    rWork)
          (Fax)	(E-mail)_




                                      '1
Do You Wbh to Make a SUtement?              YES
               REGION   2
 NAME (First)     tAv     _ (Last)




 STREET
 CITY    /\Jnjut>r£- _ STATE  AJ-\
 PHONE    fWork)   ^(-^^2-ll^lJ _ (Home)
           (Tax)          fc;-/        (E-mail)
 ORGANIZATION
ORGANIZATION    Q(/K/7 H




                                             	 NO   V
               New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico. U.S. Virgin Islands
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?             YES	 NO
-------
^•wt^'
      "V

             REGION  2
f   ttawjMwy, New YoK Pmrto Rtoo, U.S. Virgin
NAME (First)
STREET  "?        taoM£r/£"Z-fr    ST
CITY      oi                     STATE  A         ZIP
 PHONE    (Work)   <*>(-      -aQ    (Home)
         (Fax)    _ (E-mail)
 ORGANIZATION
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?            YES	 NO
              REGION  2
              New Jersey. New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
 STREET
 CITY     l^£US^^ _ STATE  /^ J"      ZIP




                °i ft - \^}L - 4 1 7 6
 PHONE   (Work)   lu^     /v"   ^   (Home)
                         s    ! L   AAJ
 ORGANIZATION	.
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?             YES	 NO
-------
              REGION  2
              NiwJ«My,N^YorKPu«toR)oo, U.S. Virgin (stands
NAME (Fiist)   _ob/\t~	(Last)




STREET   30*6
CITY  -Vsy)&~> _ STATE AJ   _ ZIP
PHONE   (Work) _ (Home)
          (Fax) _ (E-mail)
ORGA>OZATION
              REGION  2
         *    New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
                 t}£-
NAME (First)    H^p-	(Last).




STREET
               th&h _ STATE   //
          (Tax)      >--          (E-mail^
 ORGANIZATION
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?             YES           NO
 CITY _ not&h _ STATE              ZIP
 PHO.NT    (Work)
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?              YES V-	 NO
-------
             REGION   2
NAME
STREET.	
     ^obg?
             tfcwJcfMy.NmvYarKPvMrto Rico, U.S. Virgin (stands
                                 (Last)
CTTY
PHONE    (Work).
         (Fax)_
ORGANIZATION
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?
                                   STATE
                                    (Home)
                                     YES
                                                     OP
                                                          0*70*3 O
                                                   NO
   **
         *s   REGION  2
              N«* Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
NAME (First)
                ~Vi/iAj
 CITY
 PHONE    rWork^
          (Fax)
                        7"?
 ORGANIZATION
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?
                                  Oart)
                                    STATE
                                     (Home)
                                     (E-mail)
                                      YES
                                            7*^
                                                      ZIP
                                                    NO
-------
             REGION  2
             NMV J«rwy. N«w York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Island*
                                         rWn
NAME (First)  xr]      _ (Lasfi
                 na rd
STREET
CITY   	STATE	ZIP.


PHONE    (Work)	(Home)	
ORGANIZATION	

Do You Wish to Make a Statement?             YES  X\     NO
         \   REGION  2
              New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico. U.S. Virgin Islands
 NAME (First)      ^pS^rU _ (Last)   Ly C C M  f 6

                '  ^
 STREET
 CITY
                    iyv   	STATE             ZIP
npfly.
PHONE    ("Work)   / ^^C T 1 3 '^/ / 7
                                    (Home)
          (Pax)	(E-mail)
ORGANIZATION
               £ Q "fl
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?             YES  L^^    NO
-------
 ^4 ^JO^
            REGION  2
NAME (Fint)
             Qk
CITY
PHONE   (Work)




         (Fax)
                          Puerto Rto, U.S. Virgin
                                (Last)
                                        roM
Do Yon Wbh to Make a Statement?
                                 STATE
                                                   ZIP
                                   (Home)
                                               \ "
                                   (E-mail)
                                     YES
                                          /C
                                                  NO
         '1   REGION  2
             New Jersey. New Yoric, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
NAME (First) t>A




STREET
                                (Last)  R i&
       Uc
 CITY   c&g»<.e*J
                                  STATE
 PHONE    (Work) 2-( Z




          (Fax)  "2-tT:
                           GO "^M   (Home)  Zoi
                                    (E-mail) D4-w ( 0
ORGANIZATION
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?
                                     YES
                                                    ZIP
                                                      ^ -AR.K .C & M
                                                  NO
-------
             REGION  2
              New Jtrwy, N«w Yortc, Puarto Woo, U.S. Virgin Islands
NAME (First)

STREET
                                  STATE
PHONE   (Work)	(Home).

         (Fax)	0
ORGANIZATION
         \   REGION  2
NAME (First) C^TTZXy/?7U	(Last)  ///^

STREET
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?              YES__	 NO
              New Jersey. New Yortc, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Island*
err*/PA ^/  6//y	STATE / ^/	ZIP
PHONE   (Work)>// - /"7A - J>')/	(Home)

         (Fax)_

              /
ORGANIZATION /I
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?             YES           NO
-------
             REGION  2
             I^J«wy,Ntw Yak, fti^ Woo, U.S. Virgin Wandt
NAME (Tint)
STREET,


CITY
                                  STATE
                                                   ZIP
PHONE    (Work)

         (Fax)
                                    (E-mail)
ORGANIZATION
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?
                                    YES
                                           /       <^
                                          V/	  NO
         \    REGION  2
              New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico. U.S. Virgin Islands
 NAME (First).


 STREET

 CITY
                                     rferlW>i
                                  STATE
                                                    ZIP
PHONE   (Work).


         (Fax)_
                                  *  (Home)
                                    (E-mail)

 ORGANIZATION
                    /tvc-73
                                         j
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?
                                    YES
                                                  NO
-------
              REGION  2
          +    N«wJ«f»«y, N«wYortc, Puerto Rico. U.S. Wgfri Warxte
NAME (First)	<


STREET


CITY



PHONE    (Work).


         (Fax)_
                                    .(Home)_
 ORGANIZATION
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?
                                     YES
NO
o
          \   REGION  2
NAME (First)


STREET

     "t
CITY
               New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
                                 (Last).

                                 '
                                   STATE
PHONE    (Work)


          (Fax) ^ /> f
                                    (Home) x^- /  / 7 2-
 ORGANIZATION
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?
                                     YES
NO
-------
      s.
             REGION  2
              New Jertey, New Yortc, Puerto Woo. U.S. Virgin Islands
NAME (First) V  /V*&?<>'C/^	(Ust)_


STREET
CITY	/7^*y*w	^STATE	Z3P_



PHONE   (Work)	(Home)	


         (Fax)	
ORGANIZATION
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?             YES	 NO
 ^•^%
         *s   REGION  2
 NAME (First)  ^  	  /	(Last)
              New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
 STREET    ""	~	"  '  '	\ Or


 CTTY        	STATE	ZIP
 PHONE    (Work)	;	(Home).


          (Fax),	(1
 ORGANIZATION	


 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?              YES    A	 NO
-------
         \    REGION  2
              N«w Jwwy, N«w Y>l f  yO^tHome)
                                      (E-mail)
 ORGANIZATION
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?             YES	 NO
 CITY      o*?  _ STATE A-^ ^ _ ZIP
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?             YES	     NO
-------
.S-)   REGION  2
4v|i^^^ _ Jf   New Jejfwy, New York, Puerto I
             N^Jtiwy,N«wYo*Pu*rtD Rico. U.S. Virgin
NAME (First\XV*/X/g?# _ (Last)


STREET  /
QTY          _ STATE    y        ZIP
PHONE    fWork)c?^      -          (Home)
         (Faot) _ (E-mail)
ORGANIZATION
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?             YES _ NO
              REGION  2
               New Jersey. New YorK Puerto Rico. U.S. Virgin (stands
 NAME (First)             _ (Last)


 STREET
                                   STATE
 PHONE    (Work) _ (Home)


          (Fax) JOt HID <^ ffib _ (E-mail)
 ORGANIZATION
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?             YES	 NO
-------
              REGION   2
              ftaw Jwwy. Nmv York, Pmrto Rico. U.S. Virgin (starts
NAME (Pint)
STREET  \2,




CITY
PHONE    fWorirt 2 ( -2/7 J & -




          (Fax)
ORGANIZATION
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?
                                         JJ,l))n
                                   (Last)    ,l))n
                                     STATE
                                                O       ZIpPo /3§
                                       (Home)
                                       (E-mail)
                                        YES
                                                       NO_
                New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
 NAME (Pi
 STREET
              7
  CITY
                                       STATE
 PHONE    (Work)_




           (Fax)_
                      ' ^  "7?f-
                                         (E-mail)_
 ORGANIZATION
  Do You Wish to Make'a Statement?
                                         YES
                                                          ZIP
                                                        NO
-------
            REGION  2
            ttaw J«wy, N«w York, Puerto Rteo, U.S. Virgin
NAME(Fint)_
STREET.



CITY
          -»  1 ^ TXK* l£2
PHONE   (Wot


                   "  (TO
ORGANIZATION
             REGION  2
 NAME (First) //AW//^-/.	^(Last).



 STREET
Do You Wish to Make » Statement?            YES _ '    NO
             New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico. U.S. Virgin Islands
                                    Xx" /
                               STATE   x        ZIP
                                    -^ - -   -
 PHONE   fWork^ZZZ  V^^ 7///  (Home)  7'
         (FaxUl "^   _ (E-mail)
 ORGANIZATION
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?            YES	 NO
-------
             REGION  2
             N«rJ«n«y, N«w Yolt, Puwte Rtoo, U.S. Vligln Wand*
NAME (F



STREET
CITY    A          7 _ STATE  ^  I  ^   ZIP /
        ^d       ^





PHONE    (Work) O^/^}- ^^7-^^^^ (Home)   5 A
         (Tax)   4 A MS _ (E-mail)
ORGANIZATION    , -p ^ A"  K
                                       A  C.
Do You Wish to Make a Sutement?             \TS   \S     NO
         'l    REGION  2
NAME (First)    jr^ _    (last)
                           — — —



STREET
CITY  nstvfc-^ _ STATE_/A!
      —
PHONE    (Work) _ CHome)
          (Fax) _ (E-mail)
ORGANIZATION
              New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico. U.S. Virgin Islands
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?              YES	 NO
-------
  &}   REGION   2
              New Jer»«y,N*wYortc, Puerto Rk», U.S. Virgin tttoncto
NAME (Pint) -fs  _ (Last)


STREET
CITY   //C/Se/T**/ _ STATE // <  3~~    ZIP



PHONE   (Work) _ (Home)
          (Faoc) _ (E-mail)
ORGANIZATION
Do Yon Wfah to Make • Statement?             YES	 NO
          )   REGION  2	
          /   New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
 NAME (First) V  -£-£xT9^L _ (Last)     '/&

 STREET
CITY   -.<                  STATE
                                                      ZIP f) ~?6 3C
 PHONE    (Work)	(Home) ^^'     J J-&   -  /^ / /


          (Fax)	(E-mail)	
 ORGANIZATION
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?             YES	 NO
-------
S* "'\.
             REGION  2
         *   Hm Jcrwy. N«w York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Wand*
        •^
NAME (First).
PHONE    (Worky?^/


          (Fax).




ORGANIZATION
                          ftf&O    (Home)
                                    (E-mail)
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?
                                     YES
NO
\
              REGION   2
 NAME (First) /:'/0v  /i


 STREET_^


 CITY
              New Jersey, New Yortc, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
                                 (Last)
PHONE    (Work).


          (Fax)_
 ORGANIZATION
                                   STATE
                                    _(Home)_
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?
                                      YES
 NO
-------
             REGION  2
                    . New YorK Puerto Rfco, U.S. Virgin Urn*
NAME (First)_LoQCQ£
STREET (effr li>m-ST) ST. 1
CITY |-ti>
PHONE (Work)
(Tax)
O /
ORGANIZATION &nfi1&(7 Aj£5(£fe
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?
^ KD
STATE I
*v
(Home) ^
(E-mail)

YES
p

'TT UP 07Q3
^-w-w

^
s
I/ NO
             REGION  2
         *    New Jersey. New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
NAME (First)
                                 (Last)  V>e^ho.ri\ Vc' A
 STREET 1^>C  \.vi/-.c K;
CITY  \Wv-v\c €
                                  STATE
PHONE    fWork)  2j 2^
                                    (Home)
         fFax")  ^ l 2.' " ^ C 2.   2-1 M C'   (E-mail)
ORGANIZATION
                                                  C
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?
                                    YES
                                                  NO
                                                              'o
-------
              REGION   2
              N«w J«My, N«w Yortc. Puerto Woo, U.S. Virgin Ktand*
NAME (First).




STREET
CITY         nQ/?py\ _ STATE             ZIP






PHONE    fWork^ Uc>ri7qi^£7/      fflome)
               — ,
ORGANIZATION
        \   REGION   2
NAME (Firsts  ^t>(2-^& / f) _ (Last)  A- Q




STREET
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?             YES _ NO
              New Jersey. New York, Puerto Rico. U.S. Virgin Islands
CITY   /^    i-^ ' _ STATE
PHONE
          (Fax)	(E-mail)_
ORGANIZATION
 Do You Wbh to Make a Statement?              YES     /     NO
-------
             REGION  2
NAME (First).
STREET
CTTY        <>C    _ STATE             ZIP
PHONE    (Work^<:>0\   ^m "ZO   (Home)
         (Fax)   '^^ *t
-------
              REGION  2
              N«wJ«««y.N«wYocKPu«rtD RJco, U.S. Virgin l*tands
NAME
                                   STATE
PHO^^E
                                     (Home)
         (fax)
                                     (E-nuul)_
ORGANIZATION
                     .C
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?
                                     YES
                                                    NO_
          \   REGION   2
               New Jersey, New YorK Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
 NAME (Fim)__kVSK/r^
                                  (Last)
 STREET   | PIS"




 CITY	
                          U
                                  Sf
                                    STATE
 PHONE    (Work)  2-\ 1




          (Fax)	
                                     (Home)
                                      (E-mail)_
 ORGANIZATION
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?
                                      YES_
                                                       zip
                                                     NO
-------
^,.
               REGION  2
          /    ttaw J«My,N«wYork. Pu«rtoRtoo, U.S. Virgin (stand*
NAME (First)    \<^Ur\\^) \ V^^JtlL   (Last)

                    c. V-U          // f"->  .
CTRFFT      A^rCs   I    ^-L.    ^^ "S 1
w A ^\XU^j A   ^	Vs^j ^^	l	/^ r       ^^y ^
CITY              e^O _ STATE O\ _ ZIP
PHONE    (Work) ^0*5  f- ?
          (Fax) _ (E-maU)
                                               \



                               \ _ (Home) ^L6V-  felU -/ ^^T \
           '!    REGION   2
 NAME (First) K/ /,jQ3	(Last)   / /gty-.^)


 STREET
           (Fax)	(E-mail).
 ORGANIZATION.


 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?              YES X	 NO
 ORGANIZATION	


 Do You Wish to Make a Statement? "A^t- ^^"   YES   ^	 NO
                New Jersey. New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
           */ i,'£A	(Last)   lle.\j;'f
 CITY	STATE	ZIP
 PHONE    (Work)	(Home)_
-------
             REGION  2
             N«wJ«n«y.NewYork, Puwto Rico, U.S.Virgin Islands
NAME (First)___LZ£^	&-•*>•



STREET   /2- 0 I
                                       M'ho)
CTTY^	ESTATE.
                                                    ZIP
PHONE    (Work) _ (Home)
                                          2-0]
         (Fax) _ .(E-mail)
ORGANIZATION
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?              YES	 NO_
          \   REGION  2
              New JefMy, New YorK Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
 NAME (First)  *U7» i I 5	(Last)



 STREET
 CITY U lt?<;r^a*y      ^^:	SJATE    -        ZIP
                        /


 PHONE    (Work^^/- W? ^ 5"? ty  (Home)
 ORGANIZATION




 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?              YES   *-•—'    NO
-------
             REGION  2
             NcvJwwy, New Yortc, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
NAME (Pint)      co y^W _ (Last)
                                    x^O

                                    )  A ° O^/^
                                                 -
STREET _ pgyZ-foSAj   L^ x    436  ^/fr  /ygt?/r


CTTY _ ffT)r)if>r&7J _ STATE  iJ 1 _ ZIP 07^33
PHONE    (Work) £p( - ^(^7^ f 1 1 1^    (Home)  ^>l- "7 C> g - 3?O (!.


         (Fax) _ C
ORGANIZATION
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?             YES  \/       NO
                                     YES  \/
                                          \/
         \   REGION  2
         "
              New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico. U.S. Virgin Islands
NAME (First)   el  _ , _ (Lasrt
                             ?s>^l
STREET.



CITY   ftO\?
-------
         \   REGION  2
                                Rico, U.S. Virgin Wands
NAME (First)    o&-/L- _ (Last)


STREET    fflome)
          (Fax)       r-         <      (E-mail)
 ORGANIZATION
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?             YES     	 NO
         \   REGION  2
\ ^i¥^ £    New Jersey, New Yorfc, Puerto Rico. U.S. Virgin Islands


 ****. «oi»^
                                                (o
 NAME (First)   \ v x ^ ^ '"^^	(Last).   ^  ~   '    "
       lawvy   i       "              \ »w^^-^*/




 STREET      ^ '
                                   STATE             ZIP  >  3
 PHONE    0^'ork)	(Home).
          (Fax)	(E-mail)_
 ORGANIZATION            "  ^   "   "
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?              YES           NO
-------
              REGION   2
              tta»Jtfwy,N«»Yoik, Puerto Rico. U.S. Virgin tttands
NAME (Pint)




STREET
CITY          ?-r\ _ STATE             ZIP
                                           fJ 0
PHONE    (Work)
               6> 0 ^ '
          (Fax) _ (E-maiJ)
ORGANIZATION
Do You Wfah to Make a Sutement?             YES	 NO
!&,\   REGION  2
 NAME (First)   pEO'ni^	(Ust)_



 STREET   3l3^  6ATft>rJ ~l\j(^^\^  , hA-tL. Cocr UJ4.L
 CITY         fA/Pia^ _ STATE  G~ _ ZIP 06
 PHONE    fWork)  3.U^ - 3*)?- 3^/0 _ (Home)
          (Fax) _   -.   _ (E-mail)
         j7   New Jersey, New Yoffc, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
 ORGANIZATION	 /




 Do You Wish to Make a Sutement?             YES	 NO    V
-------
              REGION  2
              N«w Jwwy, N«w Yale. PuwtoRtoo, U.S. Virgin fcfcnd*
NAME (First) /-Al' v " /<~^ /	(Last)




STREET




CITY	






PHONE   (Work).
          (Fax)	(E-mail)_
ORGANIZATION

              REGION  2
\ ^Nt^ *    New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
 NAME (First) J^J^A-LliLfh	(Last),




 STREET              	
          (Fax)	(E-mail)_
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?              YES	 NO
 CTTY	STATE             ZIP
 PHONE    (Work)	(Home).
 ORGANIZATION	




 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?             YES   ^	 NO
-------
       V
         \    REGION   2
         *    t4«w Jwwy.N^YorK Puerto Rtco, U.S. Virgin
NAME (First)      W&' _ (Last)
                                       (-H
STREET


CITY     HtJ£>	STATE     // /	ZIP
PHONE   (Work) /?/fIZATlON
        \   REGION  2
                      V
NAME (First)    vut&Z V _ (Last)


STREET
Do You Wish to Make a Sutemeot?             YES           NO
              New Jersey, New Yorfc, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
CITY   M)<6^ikl£X/                   STATE  AJ^~ _ ZIP
 PHONE
                          -1*700     (Home)  (ZC()
                        "£65$     (E-maU)
 ORGANIZATION   A1ti[ct>/")
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?              YES _ NO   X.
-------
             REGION  2
NAME (First)




STREET
PHONE    (Work)




         (Fax)
ORGANIZATION
                           Puerto Rto, U.S. Virata Island*
                               .S"
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?
                                 STATE
                                                     ? Q"7Q3 c
                                    „„.,  q L 3
                                    onie)   (  P —•*
                                   YES
                                                       o/vJ
                                                  NO
         \    REGION  2
NAME(FL




STREET




CITY
              New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
                                 (Last)  S
                                   STATE
PHONE    (Work)




         (Fax)
                          (>•%
                                   _(Home)_
                                    (E-mail)
 ORGANIZATION
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?
                                    YES
                                                   ZIP
                                                  NO
-------
Vi ,t<
              REGION  2
              NswJ«i«y.r^YaKPu«toRfco, U.S. Virgin (stands
NAME (Pint)     /^~	(Last) C
                                  STATE
                                          AX\
 PHONE    (Woik)^£)(- V^**) t-ftj-ZJl    (Home)
          (Fax) _ (E-mail)_
 ORGANIZATION
          \   REGION   2
      irst) f 2f,  (ax^  CP  )    (Last)  ^ )S? v
 NAME (First)




 STREET  (? HQ
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?              YES	 NO
               New Jersey. New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
CITY   /V   1       	      STATE   'V   (      ZIP
                                                         (OO I 9
PHONE    rWork^        -         (Home)
                                          fe*^j
         rFax^2w3j  V7/-*s^6^  (E-mail)	






                       i^OLr M^S /^ yQt ^Ysp v/
 ORGANIZATION    _




 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?             YES	 NO   ^
-------
   \"S<
              REGION  2
V^MH^^    N»wJ«r»»y, NawYocKPmrtoRtoo, U.S. Virgin (state
 ^H Y*&&F

 NAME (First)  DAV£^	(Last)   1  k,O»vi/3rT>A/
s- J ,0
STREET ^> '("^ ryv^-2, ^6^ K^ l3 L/
CITY JC /' A-Y fl-r" rVtxx./J'i A.
PHONE (Woik)(6>( ^ J ^^7,- TQ
(Fax)
1 r •
^-/-~
j^'tJjifj" C/*i-^'
STATE ^ A
^5 (Home)
(E-mail)

ZIP /?44j


ORGANIZATION G^-
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?
YES
NO ^^
r^€t,1    REGION  2
              New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
            /Cc
 NAME (First)   'J ^3&£/£r	(Last)_

 STREET
 CITY    
-------
              REGION  2
              NwvJwwy.Nmr York, Puerto Woo, U.S. Virgin (stand*
NAME (FinO   ^OCAl  >*W'    OM)   ^™


STREET    \+.i\   r€r\os>iwan',B /A\/€       IJ^J^
                        ^1             ^^^^^™^—^^^^^^»^
CITY      ^.rvc^              STATE
                                  DC
 PHONE    (Work) T ^0 ^-) 6 3?' V^-?5   (Home)
 ORGANIZATION
        c t
        ^ c
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?             YES   	   NO
{^,\   REGION  2	
\ ^MM^ ^   New Jersey. New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
 NAME ^V                      (Urt


 STREET
He - Ho- \CU-5
 ORGANIZATION
 CTTY       -   o-   U- _ STATE    "        ZIP
 PHONE    (Work) ZD "3  B^^  ^> H "7 (j   (Home)  ZO^  L?"7O


          (Pax^  2 O^  3 "7 3  3^ > ^   (E-mail)
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?             YES	 NO
-------
               REGION  2
               NMrJwwy.NcwYorKPiMrtoRlco. U.S. Virgin
           W ^ W^/ —           (Ust)  G>^r->\o^U-^  UJ
 NAME (First)         ^/ — _ (Ust)




 STREET
 CITY _       v^ _ STATE             ZIP






 PHONE    (Work)  I ^V A <^"H - ^ ( U ?- (Home)
          (Fax) _ (E-mail)
 ORGANIZATION
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?             YES           NO
          \    REGION   2
\ -^ilC^r ^'    New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
 NAME (First)  \V \ QV\^vcf	    (Last)




 STREET
CITY     nUV>U^>^	STATE  r" ^	ZIP
 PHONE    (Wori62o  ^10 -OO^>      (Home)     7/ 1 -
          fFax)  ^-^  ^  L - LA-2^^- o   (E-mail)






 ORGANIZATION   \ r\
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?              YES__X±      NO
                                                               °3 C
-------
             REGION  2
        A   ttawJwMy. New Yort(,PiMftoRtoo, U.S. Virgin Mvidt
NAME (First) \Jcrf({	(Last)


STREET
CITY /04f?/frn	STATE  A/J	ZIP




PHONE    (Work)	(Home)
         (Fax)	(E-mai])_
ORGANIZATION
              REGION   2
 NAME (First)  /?Wil  fl J( \\DUffl(h(/ (Last)
                   u      / \    /
                                       Apf.
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?              YES	 NO
              New Jersey. New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
STREET_


CTTY    flVnO^i ^ *	STATE_^_J	ZIP




PHONE    (Work) A O\ '

 ORGANIZATION
 Do You Wish to Make a Statement?             YES _ NO
-------
            REGION  2
STREET
PHONE
                                U.S.Wginlstvxli
                                              _






NAME (First)  jd     _ dart     \H    *~- *




                                 A\te
CITY  /vjpvL>  TVrw            STATE
                                     A
                                                ZIP
                       3^7^    (Home)  \\k
         (Fax)           ol^    (E-mail)
                                            J

              r \\b
ORGANIZATION
                                                     fCV?fan
Do You Wish to Make a Statement?             YES   	 NO
-------
              APPENDIX D
TRANSCRIPT OF JULY 16, 1997 PUBLIC MEETING
-------
             GRAND STREET MERCURY SITE
                HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
                   PUBLIC MEETING
                   JULY 16, 1997
              COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M.
BEFORE:
                                   %^_-
PAT SEPPI
COMMUNITY RELATIONS COORDINATOR, EPA

JOHN HANSEN
REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGER, EPA

MARK MADDALONI
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST, EPA

CAROLE PETERSEN
CHIEF, NEW JERSEY REMEDIATION BRANCH

JACK HARMON
ON-SCENE COORDINATOR
ALSO    PRESENT:

JOANNE M. WIREMAN
PROJECT MANAGER
ICF KAISER ENGINEERS GROUP
APPEARANCES:
CATHERINE GARYPIE, ESQ.
ASSISTANT REGIONAL COUNSEL
EPA
         ATTORNEYS' COURT REPORTING SERVICE
                    P.O. BOX 57
            HACKENSACK, NEW JERSEY 07602
                    (201) 342-1111
-------
                   INDEX

SPEAKER                                   PAGE

LISA PLEVIN                                36
(SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG)

SENATOR BERNARD F.  KENNY, JR.              38

SENATOR ROBERT G. TORRACELLI'S
STATEMENT                                  38

JOSE ALVAREZ                               41
(CONGRESSMAN ROBERT MENENDEZ)

ASSEMBLYMAN LOUIS ROMANO                   44

ASSEMBLYMAN JOHN ROONEY                    46

JANE GARDNER (GE)                          49

PATRICK McNAMARA, ESQ.                      57

MICHAEL GOCHFELD, MD,  PhD                  60

CURTIS CRYSTAL                             67

CORINNE MULRENAN                           71

EILEEN HOFFMAN                             78

MEREDITH LIPPMAN                           79

CHINA MARKS                                82

MATT SCHLEY                                84

SULTAN CATTO                               86

IGNATIUS CAMPOREALE                        89

CYNTHIA SILBER                             91

PETER HOMITZKY                             93

RICHARD WEINSTEIN, ESQ.                    94

RICHARD PIEPSZAK                          101
-------
SPEAKER                                   PAGE




MADELYN HOFFMAN                           103




MANUEL MACARRJLLA                         108



HENRY KEOGH                               109



SHUN-YI CHEN                              110
-------
                                                                4

 1                          MS. SEPPI:  If everybody  could  take a

 2            seat, I'd like to get the meeting going, please.

 3                          I know there's still some people

 4            signing in and coming in.  It's very warlr,  you  all

 5            know that, I'd like to get started.

 6                          First of all,  I want to thank everybody

 7            for coming here this evening on such a  hot  and  sticky

 6            night.  We honestly did think that this high  school

 9            was air conditioned, and when we found  out  it wasn't,
                                                              *.
10            we ran around and we were able to get some  fans, and

11            I do apologize for that.

12                          I'd like to introduce some of the
                                    .                          •
13            people who are up here at the table and also  some

14            other people who are in the  audience.  A lot  of you

15            may know some of these people already.

16                          To my right is John Hansen, he  is the

17            Remedial Project Manager for the Grand Street site;

18            Mark Maddalonl, who is an Environmental Scientist

19            with the EPA and also did the Risk Assessment;  Jack

20            Harmon, who is the On-Scene  Coordinator who has been

21            handling the project here since its inception;  and in

22            the first row we have Carole Petersen,  who  is the

23            Chief of the New Jersey Remediation Branch; next to

24            Carole is Cathy Garypie, who is EPA's attorney  for

25            Grand Street.
-------
                                                  5
              We also have some representatives from
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
here this evening, and one person I would like to
mention who is standing in the back is Joanne Wireman
from ICF, and believe me, without her, we would not
be ready and standing here right now.
              Thank you, Joanne.
              My name is Pat Seppi, and I am
Community Relations Coordinator with EPA, Region 2 in
New York.
              The reason that we are here tonight is
to share with you our Proposed Plan.  Probably most
                                                »
of you received a copy of it in the mail.  If you
haven't, there are copies outside.   If you already
have one copy and want another one, it would probably
make a nice fan, we might need that before the
evening goes on.
              So you know, the alternative that EPA
has chosen for the Grand Street site is permanent
relocation of the residents and demolition of the
building.  Now, I need to stress that this is a
proposed plan, this is not our final remedy, this is
not our final decision.  That's why we are having
this meeting tonight, and that's why we are in the
thirty day public comment period.  The comment period
-------
                                                  6


started on July 9th and it will end on August  7th.



In those thirty days, we will be taking oral comments



from anybody tonight who wants to give them, and you



are certainly welcome to make written comments and



address them to John Hansen.  His address is in the



Proposed Plan.  There are also a lot of other



documents available for you to read that are in two



locations, in the Hoboken Public Library that's on



Park Avenue, and also in our Records Center in our



office in lower Manhattan, at 290 Broadway.
                                                ».


              So we urge ycu to please go, take a



look at those documents, the Risk Assessment, the



Focused Feasibility Study is there and other related



documentation.



              The most important thing about this



public comment period is you.  Before we make any



kind of final decision in conjunction with DEP, we



want to hear your comments, we want to hear your



concerns.  After we do that, we will take a look at



what you have to say, we will review it, we will



consider it, and then we will come up with our final



decision document, which is called a Record of



Decision.  That is our legally binding document.



              Now, a couple of things I wanted to



mention, a change in the agenda.  Lisa Jackson was
-------
                                                  7
supposed to be here this evening to talk about an
overview of the Superfund program, and she is home
ill and very sorry she cannot be here, as I am,
because I have to do her little speech, and I am
certainly not going to do as well she could have.
Other than that, the agenda stands.
              I would ask please, if you hold
questions until the end of our presentation,  we are
going to try to keep it very short.  We want the bulk
of the time to be used up with your statements and
                                                «.
questions and answers, but this is a public meeting
and though some of the information will be repetitive
to a lot of you, there are people here that have* not
been privy to a lot of this information before.
              There is a sign-in sheet in the back.
As I said, there are other handouts back there, I
think ATS — oh, where are you, I knew I forgot to
Introduce somebody.  Artie Block from ATSDR is here
and he has also left some handouts in the back, the
Mercury Fact Sheets, so please help yourselves to
those.
              So I think what we will do now is go to
an overview of the Superfund program.  Now, this
slide is a little bit different than what you have in
your packet, we thought this might be a good idea to
-------
                                                                8
 1            show an analogy of what  it takes  usually for a
 2            Superfund site to go  from site discovery to the  RIFS
 3            stage and the public  meeting like we  are having
 4            tonight and what we have been able  to do at Grand
 5            Street.
 6                          So if you look at that  slide,  I  don't
 7            want to go into a lot of detail,  we will  leave that
 6            for the questions, but an average NPL site  from  site
 9            discovery to the RIFS stage and the public  meeting
10            can take anywhere usually from five to eight yea;:s.
11            And that is counting even one to  three years and
12            sometimes more to get the site listed on .the National
13            Priorities List.
14                          However, at Grand Street, you can  see
15            that we have been able to go from site discovery to
16            this meeting tonight in twenty months.  So we  really
17            have fast-tracked this whole project, and actually
18            from site discovery to proposing  Grand Street  for our
19            National Priorities List, it was  only one year.
20                          Now, if you are not familiar, the
21            National Priorities List is a list of Superfund  sites
22            throughout the whole country.  Grand  Street was
23            proposed and we hope  it will become final sometime
24            later this summer, late August or early  September.
25                          Now, I  know there is  a  lot  more
-------
                                                   9

information I could give you, but I think we are

going to ask John Hansen right now to give us a

little bit of the si^e background.

              John.

              hR- HANSEN:  Good evening.  I would

also like to stress tc you this evening that we are

in a public comment time period during which you are

invited to review documents at the repository/ which

is the Hoboken Public Library, and you can also make

an appointment to come to our regional office at 290
                                                • •
Broadway in Manhattan to look at that file.

              All documents that we prepared today

are subject to review, and we Invite your comment.

              I would like to start out this evening

with a little bit of background about the Grand

Street mercury site.

              The building, which is just across the

street catty-corner, at the corner of 8th and Grand,

was historically utilized as a manufacturer of

lighting materials by General Electric and by

Cooper-Hewitt and some other entities.  One of the

types of lighting materials that was manufactured at

the site was something called a mercury vapor lamp.

That's a large tube that is often about four feet

long that has a little tiny pool of mercury in it.
-------
                                                   10

They also manufactured mercury switches and utilized


mercury to assist in making vacuums at the site.  And

as you may be aware, you need to remove oxygen  from

the inside of lighting material to make it a

noncombustible atmosphere.

              Also somewhat at times concurrent to

this lighting manufacturer  was a company called

Quality Tool and Die that manufactured tools and dies

for a variety of industries,  including the aerospace

industry.  They were active at the site from 194&

until 1988, and were run by members of the Pascale

family.
                                                »
              In 1993, the  Grand Street Artists

Partnership became Interested in the site and bought

it from the Pascales,  and up to 1995,  began

converting the building into residential and studio

units.

              In March 1995,  a subrtance which was

presumed to be liquid elemental mercury was found in

the flooring of a fifth floor unit, and EPA was

called in shortly after to  investigate the site.

              From March to October 1995, the Grand

Street Artists Partnership  enlisted an environmental


contractor to come into the building and attempt to


remediate the mercury contamination on the fifth
-------
                                                   11
floor.  They found they were unable to remediate the
mercury, and in December 1995, based on some
environmental information which we will talk about in
just a minute, EPA and the Agency For Toxic Substance
Disease Registry, which is a branch of the Department
of Health & Human Services, along with the Center for
Disease Control came in and evaluated the urine of
people at the site for mercury concentrations.
              In January 1996, the Hoboken Health
Department Issued an evacuation order requiring the
                                                *•
residents of the building to move out.
              From January 1996, EPA has been
extensively involved in monitoring environmental
media like air, the building structural components,
soils on the site and off the site.  We've also
monitored the air of the building adjacent to the
site.
              In April 1997, EPA took the
environmental data that it compiled and conducted a
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment to assess the
riak to people inhaling mercury vapor contaminated
air as well as ingesting mercury in the soil in the
parking lot, which many of you may be aware is
covered with an asphalt cap.  The situation we were
attempting to evaluate is the risk that might be
-------
                                                  12


posed to people if that asphalt  cap  were  to  degrade



and people were to subsequently  be exposed to mercury



in the soil.



              As of this month,  we've completed a



Focused Feasibility Study and Issued the  Proposed



Plan, which we are here to talk  to you about this



evening.  That Proposed Plan opens up the public



comment period, as both Pat and  I mentioned  to you,



and that public comment period ends on August 7th.



              I would like to start by addressing the
                                                • *


sampling we have done in the air in the building.  We



have collected almost 2,000 samples, and  in  those



2,000, we have collected time weighted average  •



samples as well as instantaneous samples, and we



found that approximately 70% of the samples  in the



building identified mercury concentrations in the air



-- that's in the main building and the townhouse



which is adjacent to the main building on Grand



Street — mercury concentrations in the breathing



zone in the air, that's approximately four to five



feet, ranges of a variety of levels, the  highest of



which was 300 micrograms per cubic meter.



              That number probably doesn't mean a  lot



to you.



              Mark Maddaloni is  going to  talk to  you
-------
                                                   13
about risk and give you a little insight to that as
well, but I'd like to point out initially that the
residential risk base standard that we developed is
.09 micrograms per cubic meter.
              In other words, this value is
approximately three to 4,000 times higher than our
risk base number.
              We also sampled extensively the
structural components of the building, including the
wooden posts and beams and flooring materials, the
bricks that form the outer shell,  and the walls
throughout the building, the concrete and the
flooring of the basement, and also the tar paper* in
the roofing materials of the building.  We found
mercury throughout the building, but in order to be
absolutely sure, we went into the fifth floor units
and we found that same silvery liquid that was
initiallyj reported by the Grand street Artists
Partnership to be prevalent throughout those units.
We analyzed eight samples of it and we found that
silvery liquid was indeed mercury.  We went back and
we looked in the flooring of the sixteen units in the
building, and we found visible liquid silvery mercury
throughout thirteen of those units.  We found that in
the wooden material in the building; mercury was
-------
                                                   14
found in all of the types of wood  that we  sampled  and
that Is, the posts, the beams, the  floor joists, the
flooring material, and that was not the silvery
elemental mercury you might be familiar with  in
thermoreters or mercury switches,  if you've ever seen
that, like what we found in the flooring,  the type of
mercury that we found in the wood was mercury that,
because mercury is a liquid, It vaporizes  and mercury
vapor goes throughout the air.  That's why we were
monitoring during the air monitoring, and  it can*-
settle on solid surfaces, and it prefers organic
material, like wood or oil.   And so the mercury vapor
rose up potentially from the mercury that's in the
flooring, but it could have also come as part of the
industrial operations that were utilizing  mercury,
and vaporized and condensed on the walls,  condensed
on the bricks, condensed on the tar paper  in the
ceiling, condensed in the concrete in the  basement,
and the concentrations we measured were from about  .8
parts per million or mg/kg.   Those terms are
relatively equivalent to over thirteen parts per
million, and that's about 1.3%.
              We also sampled brick on the fourth  and
fifth floors, and we found mercury concentrations  to
range from about 40 to about 9,000 parts per  million
-------
                                                   15

or mg/kg.

              In the basement of the building are

some floor drains and sump pits that were filled with

sediments.  We sampled those sediments, and we found

mercury in every sample ranging in concentrations

from 36 mg/kg to 2,540 mg/kg.

              In the parking lot, as I mentioned

before, which is covered by asphalt, we drilled

through the asphalt to try to determine the extent to
                                                *«
which mercury contamination was present in the soil

beneath that cap.  We took 50 samples, 30 of which

were composites, over 8 feet depth, the other of
                                                *

which were what we call discrete, they were more an

individual sample.  We found mercury concentrations

in every one of them.

              Not every one is indicative of a

problem at the site, but we did find mercury

concentrations as high as 290 mg/kg, which is

indicative of contamination.

              The highest concentrations of mercury

we found in the soil were along the side of the

former industrial building, which further indicates

that it was contaminant from some sort of industrial

operation.

              We also sampled off site, we sampled at
-------
                                                                 16


 1            an  adjacent property.   We  took  23  samples from that


 2            property, and we  found  that mercury concentrations


 .3            were  not detectable  in  one sample  and  ranged up to 39


 4            mg/kg, with an average  of  15.6  ing/kg throughout that


 5            property.


 6                          Mark will explain to you a  little bit


 7            later what the value of 15.5 means relative  to our


 6            risk  based standard, but we determined that  that


 9            value was lower than our risk based standard and,


10            therefore, posed very little likelihood of
                                                               ».

11            development of adverse health effects.  We also


12            sampled the air at two off-site locations, which were


13            both  adjacent to the site, and we  did  not find  '


14            mercury vapor levels in the air to be  problematic in


15            the least.


16                          That is a good segway to transfer to


17            Mark  Maddaloni, who was involved in conducting our


16            Risk  Assessment.


19                          MS. SEPPI:  Before Mark  starts,  I just


20            wanted to let you know that there  is some water up


21            here  and some cups and some ice, if anyone gets


22            thirsty.  And also one thing I  forgot  to mention,


23            this  is being recorded tonight  by  a Court Reporter,


24            and when it comes to the question  and  answer session,


25            I will just have a couple of directions for  you, but
-------
                                                  17
that is what I just want to remind everybody, that
this is being recorded to be put into the record.
              Thank you.
              Mark.
              MR. MADDALONI:  Thank you, John.
              As John mentioned, I'm here to report
the results of the Risk Assessment for the site, and
rather than just rattle off some numbers which might
be difficult to put into context, allow me to walk
you through EPA's Risk Assessment process.
                                                • «
              It is a four part affair consisting of
Hazard Identification, Exposure Assessment,  Toxicity
or Dose/Response Assessment, and, finally, they are
rolled into what we call a Risk Characterization,
where we are able to make quantitative or numerical
estimates of the risk at the site.
              So the first step is the Hazard
Identification.
              When we first approach a Superfund
site, the first thing we need to do is determine what
are the Contaminants of Concern.  EPA works off what
we call a Target Compound List, which is an extensive
laundry list of chemicals which have historically
been associated with hazardous waste sites.  We also
do a very thorough site history, which helps us  in
-------
                                                                 18


 1            our  sampling patterns.   Then  we  take all the sampling



 2            data we generate and  look  at  things  like the



 3            frequency of detection/  the concentration,  comparison



 4            with background, and  eventually  we are able to boil



 5            what often goes down  to  what  we  call our Contaminants



 6            of Concern, which will be  carried throughout the  Risk



 7            Assessment.



 8                          At the  Grand Street site,  the past



 9            industrial site activity, which  John detailed,



10            featured prominently  in  our identification  of mercury
                                                              • •


11            as the singular contaminant of concern at the site.



12            So in a sense, this step was  comparatively  easy at



13            the  Grand Street site.



14                          Once we have identified the contaminant



15            or in this case the Contaminant  of Concern,  we need



16            to make some determination as to what kind  of



17            exposures might be occurring  or  can  potentially occur



19            from the site related to the  contaminant, and that's



19            the  second step, the  Exposure Assessment.



20                          And in  this  part we are essentially



21            asking two questions: where is the stuff and how  does



22            it get into my body?



23                          Well, where  is  contamination?  It could



24            be in any of the available environmental media:



25            water, and that could include ground or surface
-------
                                                  19
water; soil, which would also include sediments or
air/ indoor and/or outdoor.  Obviously, indoor air
was a very prominent exposure source at Grand Street.
              The next question is: how does
contaminants from the environment media get into the
body?
              There are three main, what I would
call, ports of entry into the body: ingestion,
inhalation, and dermal, percutaneous absorption, and
then it really becomes a matter of mixing and
matching.  We look at all the different exposure
pathways, and once we determined at Grand street what
                                                •
that was, we found significant exposure or potential
exposure from residential ingestion of the mercury
vapors in the interior or indoor air at Grand Street,
and this is by adult and child residents as well as
workers, and we also looked at exposures to the
soilborne mercury under the parking lot and the
off-site area.
              Now, once we had the exposure pathways,
we then make conservative estimates of the exposure
pathways looking at the frequency of exposure, the
relation of exposure, Ingestion and inhalation rates,
and what we finally come up with is what we refer to
as Reasonable Maximum Exposure Dose, it is on a daily
-------
                                                  20

basis/ and you'll see we make use of that value data

In the Risk Characterization.

              So now we've identified the

contaminant, we've made some evaluation of current

and/or potential exposure pathways, and now we need

to look at the next step, which is the Toxicity

Assessment.

              In this step, we would like to know

what kinds of effects does the contaminant,  in this
                                                • *
case mercury, cause and what is the dose response

relationship.

              EPA has historically broken down

toxiclty assessment to cancer and non-cancer

assessments.  Now,  all the most current scientific

evidence would indicate that mercury is not cancer

causing in either animal or human subjects,  and

consequently we do not evaluate it as a carcinogen.

And that being the case, I am not going to spend

anymore time on how we otherwise do cancer toxicity

assessment, rather let me focus then on non-cancer

effects, which certainly mercury cause* plenty of

those.  What I mean by non-carcinogenic or systemic

effects is essentially all effects other than cancer,

toxicity to major organ systems, the cardiovascular

system, respiratory system, kidney, liver or some
-------
                                                  21
other vital body part.  The way EPA does this is we
have developed what we call reference doses, which
are chemical specific.  A reference dose is a measure
of a particular chemical's threshold, the causing
effects to which many safety factors have been there,
and functionally a reference dose is an estimated
daily dose which can occur to the human population
without risk of deleterious or adverse side' effects.
So in other words, this is what we would consider a
safe dose, with an adequate margin of safety.
                                                • •
              Just for your information/ this  gets a
little technical, the reference doses are specific,
so you'll see two there, one for mercury ingestion
and the other for the solid forms, which can be
ingested.  Without going into great detail,  you can
see that there are quite a few serious decimal
places, and I think it is safe to say that there's
not a lot of mercury you can be exposed to on a
routine basis and have it considered safe.
              So we've looked at the Hazard
Identification, we've identified mercury as a
Contaminant of Concern, we've evaluated the exposure
pathways to give us an estimate of what the daily
exposure might be to these substances, we've looked
at the types of effects that mercury causes.  You'll
-------
                                                  22

see kidney toxicity and central nervous system

toxicity-  Now, finally we are prepared to make some

judgments about the actual risks related to  the site,

and that's the Risk Characterization.

              Once again, by convention, EPA breaks

it down into two categories, cancer and non-cancer.

Since mercury is not known to be cancer causing,

that's really a moot point here, it's not applicable,

so there's no cancer risk relating to this site.

However, we did need to evaluate the non-cancer **

risks, and the way we do that is through a system

that's referred to as the Hazard Index, abbreviated
                                                »
HI up there.  The Hazard Index is a representation of

a chronic daily intake, this is essentially the dose

that we obtain from the exposure assessment, divided

by our safe or reference dose.  As you might surmise,

if the chronic daily intake exceeds the safe or

reference doee, there is the potential for concern.

And the more it exceeds the reference dose or the

greater that number becomes or the greater it draws

Increasingly larger than one, the risks obviously

increase as well.

              Now, let me just go through what we

actually found through the pathways.  How, I think

this table is in your Proposed Plan.  And as you can
-------
                                                  23
see from the inhalation of mercury in air, that's the
indoor air within the site, I want to be very
specific about that, it's not outdoor ambient air in
the neighborhood, but from the interior ambient air
within the building we found that the child resident,
the adult resident, the adult worker, all
significantly exceed the Hazard Index of one.  In the
case of a child, the levels that we calculated were
over 500 times what we believe to be a safe dose.  As
far as the bottom line, ingestion of mercury in «oil,
we see that the off-site child resident, resident and
the adult worker, those numbers are less than one,
which indicates that the exposure dose is under 'the
safe dose, so, therefore, we don't believe there's
any hazard associated with those exposure pathways.
For the child resident, it is 2.1, that's marginally
elevated.
              That's the results of the Risk
Assessment.
              One other chore that the risk assessor
is often asked to perform, and that is in addition to
assessing the site for risk, which are demonstrated
up there, then the question becomes well, if there
are hazards at the site, what would be a safe level
of contaminant in these various environmental media,
-------
                                                                 24

 1             in  the  air or  in  the  soil?

 2                           In  order  to do  that,  that's really just

 3             the flip  side  of  the  Risk Assessment  coin,  it is just

 4             a matter  of setting the exposure  dose or the chronic

 5             daily intake at an acceptable  level or daily safe

 6             level and then calculating a dose in  the media of

 7             concern which  would be at or below  that dally

 6             exposure  oose.

 9                           When I  performed that calculation,  you

10             see here  that  the child resident  from inhaling

11             mercury vapors from within the building,  this is what

12             we  call driving the cleanup, we have  to clean up to
                                                               »
13             the lowest level to protect a child before  the

14             building  could be safely rehabitated  by anyone in the

15             general public, and again children  being the most

16             sensitive subpopulatlon here.  With the relative view

17             that they be less than technically  oriented,  let me

18             just try  to give you  some perspactive of what .09

19             mlcrograma per meter  la.  A microgram is

20             one-millionth  of a gram.  A gram  is about the amount

21             of  material you would find in a Sweet and Low packet

22             on  a luncheonette counter.  So  .09, that's  slightly

23             less than one-tenth of  one microgram, so that amount

24             of  mercury is, let's  say, 1/10 millionth of the

25             amount  of the  contents  of a Sweet and Low packet
-------
                                                  25
disbursed into a space or a volume of a meter cubed.
A meter is slightly longer than a yard; a yard is 36
inches, a meter is 39 and change.  So if you could
picture this yard by yard by yard, I think we're
talking about a box that a washing machine might come
in or something, so 1/10 millionth of a Sweet and Low
package disbursed into the volume of a washing
machine sized volume is the amount of mercury we
believe to be safe to rehabitate this building.
              So confronted with that information.,
I'm going to give you back to John to discuss EPA's
proposed remedy for the site.
              MR. HANSEN:  I'll agree that Mark  ha,s
brought up some pretty complex terms in perspective.
              Since you're all here, I assume you
know pretty much where we are in Hoboken.   The high
school is this small house like shaped icon on the
map that covers this entire square block,  and the
Grand Street mercury site, as I said earlier, is
catty-corner to that (indicating).
              I want to point out to you the general
layout of the site.  Here we are in the high school,
and when we're talking about the former industrial
building, we're talking about this large area here
that was divided into four units per floor with the
-------
                                                                26

 1            exception of the basement.   And if  you ever are


 2            reading a report and  reading abcut  the different


 3            units and where the samples  were taken,  if  this is


 4            interesting to you, the A units are here, B,  C, and


 5            D.  The townhouse that we often reference is  this


 6            house right here that there  is  a yard  behind  that


 7            that flanks ever into the area  behind  the industrial


 8            building and goes over.  The parking lot we are


 9            talking about where we identified the  soil  sampling


10            is in this area.  This building is  the building that


11            was used by General Electric, Cooper-Hewitt and other


12            lighting manufacturers as well  as Quality Tool  and
                                                              *

13            Die.  It is a five-story industrial  building, and it


14            was built in about 1910.  General Electric  and


15            Cooper-Hewitt also had some  manufacturing operations


16            in this building across 8th  Street,  Columbus  Gardens,


17            a high density housing complex  on here, across  Adams


16            Street is residential housing,  and  residential


19            housing flanks the side on this side and extends down


20            Adams Street and adjacent to 720 Grand Street and


21            down the block is residential housing.  Across  the


22            street from the site, across Grand  is  a


23            commercial/industrial building  complex (indicating).


24                          Before  we did  the Risk Assessment and


25            kind of concurrent to it, we contracted out to  an
-------
                                                  27
environmental contractor the task of evaluating
whether or not mercury in the site could be removed
and whether the site could be remediated and
reoccupied by humans.
              As part of that, we asked the
contractor to look at all of the available
technologies that are out there and look into their
effectiveness for remediating industrial buildings,
such as the one we are dealing with, to residential
standards.  We also asked them to calculate the costs
of such remediation if that remediation was
determined to be possible and the cost of demolition,
if remediation is not possible.  I do have some
copies of that report, by the way, up here for you to
look at, if you'd like to afterward.  I also have
copies of the Risk Assessment, three copies I think  I
brought, and four copies of the Feasibility Study.
You all should have a copy of the Proposed Plan.   So
you're more than welcome to come up here and look at
the technical evaluation, the Focused Feasibility
Study and the Risk Assessment, if you want to,
afterward.
              What the technical evaluation
determined was the mercury contamination was
prevalent throughout the site and that mercury
-------
                                                                28

 1            remediation may or may not be possible.   They did


 2            caution if mercury remediation attempt was made, that


 3            the mercury remediation would not be successfully


 4            known until after it was tried.  And that mercury,


 5            being a vapor at room temperature, has permeated


 6            surfaces throughout the building and could


 7            potentially re-release into the interior  air  space of


 8            the building, even after a successful remedial effort


 9            was undertaken and completed.


10                          So based on four major points of


11            Information, EPA developed a Focused Feasibility


12            Study to evaluate remedial alternatives for the Grand
                                                              »

13            Street site.  The first of which was information that


14            was provided tc EPA by parties prior to EPA


15            involvement.  The second was the extensive


16            environmental monitoring that EPA undertook after


17            December '96, when EPA became involved in the site,


18            and that Includes the air monitoring, the monitoring


19            of the building structural component, and the soil


20            monitoring and all the other monitoring we did.


21            Thirdly, we looked at the remedial action objectives


22            that were calculated by our Risk Assessment.  And


23            fourth, the technical evaluation which identified


24            technologies and process options for removing mercury


25            from the site and provided us with some cost
-------
                                                   29
estimates for remediating and/or demolishing  the
site.
              In terms of what we had to look at in
our Focused Feasibility Study, we identified  four
main elements of concern.  We needed to look at the
fate of the prior occupants of the building, we
needed to look at the data that we had regarding
mercury contamination in the buildings, we had to
look at the data we had regarding mercury
contamination in the soil, and we assessed that there
                                                • *
may be some site attributable impacts to groundwater,
so we're going to do some groundwater monitoring.
              Further, we looked at the ultimate* end
use of the Grand Street site.  We are required to
look into that in selection of any remedy under the
Superfund process, and we assessed that Hoboken is
changing from what was once a primarily
commercial/industrial to a residential area and that
residential conversions are happening here in
Hoboken.  The zoning for the site has been changed to
R2, which is aultifamily residential, and Hoboken has
indicated that it does not want to change back to an
industrial/commercial classification.  Therefore,  the
most likely end use for the site is the residential
end use.
-------
                                                  30

              We identified five different  remedial

alternatives.  The first one, which may sound absurd

to you, is what wouid happen if we did absolutely

nothing.  We are required to do this under  the law.

We have to use this as a baseline for comparing this

to the effectiveness of the other alternatives.

Under no action, the temporary relocation which is

being afforded to the prior occupants of the site

would cease, we would stop maintaining the building

and conducting security at the site.  No soil

remediation would occur and groundwater would not be

characterized.  Therefore, all the risks that have
                                                *
been identified at the site would continue to be

present.

              Under our second alternative that we

developed, the temporary relocation program will

continue until such time that EPA could attempt a

remedial effort on the building.  That, means that we

try to remediate the building for the reuse of the

prior occupants, with the, as I mentioned before,

success of that remedy unknown until that was

actually completed.  At which time, if we were

successful, the building would be reoccupied by the

prior occupants.  Concurrent to that remedial effort,

we would be sampling, excavating and disposing of
-------
                                                   31
contaminated soil off-site and we would drill some
monitoring wells or well points into the groundwater
to determine if there are any site attributable
impacts.  This would require at least, we estimate,
one year of clearance monitoring.  What I mean by
that is, one year after the remediation effort has
been conducted, during which the building is not
reoccupied, and we make sure the mercury vapors don't
rise, and then even after occupying, we would do
what's known as operation maintenance, we would do
                                                «.
that for 10 years while the building was reoccupied.
And if the mercury vapor levels ever went above the
residential risk based standards, we'd have to  '
declare remedy failure and re-evacuate the building
and identify some other options for the site.
              And bur third alternative, we looked at
permanently relocating the residents because of the
unsurety that we have regarding a successful
remediation effort, but taking that effort
nonetheless and attempting to remediate the building
for residential use by other parties.
              Now, we would also do the soil work
that I mentioned and the groundwater investigation
that I mentioned, and at the end of a successful
remedial effort, we would attempt to recover the cost
-------
                                                  32
of the building by selling it.
              Could you go back one slide,  Pat.  What
I neglected to mention regarding alternative  two was
that a cost estimate that we calculated  for all of
these activities is approximately $9.7 million, and
that it would take approximately 46 months  to
achieve.
              In alternative three, the cost jumps to
$13 million, but the time estimate goes down to about
40 months.
              In alternative four, we looked again at
relocating the residents permanently,  and this time
remediating the building to industrial or commercial
standards.  If you remember the slide that Mark put
up before regarding the remedial action objectives,
if we were to do- this, the number we'd have to
achieve would be quite a bit higher than this is in
terms of mercury vapor in air,  than the number for
residential reuse.  So there is a greater likelihood
of success with this alternative.
              We would also do the soil work and the
groundwater work I mentioned previously, and attempt
to recoup the value of the property after the
remediation had taken place.
              And finally, alternative five looked  at
-------
                                                  33

permanently relocating the residents of the building


and demolishing both the building and the townhouse


because of the uncertainties associated with

remediating them to either residential or industrial


or commercial standards.  We would also do the soil

work I mentioned and groundwater work.  After we were

done, the property would have some intrinsic value,

which we would try to recover by selling it.


              After we developed all these
                                                • «
alternatives/ all these possibilities, we weighed

them against nine possible criteria.  The first two

of which include overall protection of human health
                                                »
and the environment, and compliance with

environmental regulations, which are known as ARARs.

ARARs must be achieved by any alternative that we

look at.  All of our alternatives except for the no

action alternative potentially left these threshold

criteria with varying degrees of expected success.

              In terms of balancing criteria, which


are the five criteria, including long-term

effectiveness and permanence; reduction of toxicity,


mobility or volume through treatment; short-term

effectiveness; implementability; and cost, any one of


these could drive the selection or the non-selection


of any one of the remedial alternatives, but they
-------
                                                  34
don't all have to be met absolutely for  an
alternative to be accepted.
              The modifying criteria, which  round out
the nine criteria are: state and county  acceptance,
and based on whether or not the community and the
county accepts what we propose, we  may or may not be
able to implement a remedy.  The state has agreed,
concurred wit-h our proposal, and we evaluate
community acceptance during the public comment
period.
              So alternative five,  the one we've
proposed to you tonight and in our  Proposed Plan,
includes demolition of the building, permanent  '
relocation of the prior residents of the site, soil
remediation, and groundwaterl investigation.
              The rationale that we employed in
selecting this alternative is: that this alternative
permanently eliminates any future mercury
contamination or exposure to mercury vapors or
mercury contaminated soil at the site; it achieves
our goals more quickly; this alternative would cost
about $13.8 million and take about  23 months to
implement, which is about half the  time  for
alternative two, which was an attempt at remediating
the building and putting the prior  occupants back in;
-------
                                                  35



it moves the residents into a permanent housing



situation in the shortest time possible; allows for



future residential use of the property; and is


protective of human health and the environment.



              At this point we kind of go to an open



forum, public comment, which Pat will moderate.



              MS. SEPPI:  Okay.  Actually we got this


in in our allotted time of forty-five minutes.  I'm


very happy about that.  We do have sort of an order



that we're going to take comments and questions...



              First we have some prepared statements


from Senators Lautenberg and Torricelll's offices,


and then we also have Congressman Menendez,  who has a


representative from his office to make a statement,


and Assemblyman Romano, and Assemblyman Rooney also.


Then we have a couple of attorneys, and then we'd
   V'

like to turn the floor over to the Grand Street


residents; and then anybody who has a comment or a


statement to make, I have your cards up here, and



anybody else in the audience after that is certainly



welcome to make a comment.


              One thing I do ask is when you come up



to the microphone to make your comment, so we have



your name in the record, I would appreciate it if you



would state your name and you can spell it so we can
-------
                                                  36

make sure that our Court Reporter gets the  name


properly into the record.


              So I think Lisa Plevin is here  from


Senator Lautenberg's office.


              MS. PLEVIN:  Thanks, Pat.


              First, I'm Lisa Plevin.  I'm  the


Projects Director for Senator Frank Lautenberg, and I


bring a brief statement from him.


              I want to express my strong support for


EPA's proposed plan for the demolition of the Grand


Street Mercury Site in Hoboken.


              As you know,  I have been working with
                                                •

the residents of the site since they first  found out


they were being forced to evacuate their homes.  I


have followed the details of this situation closely


and believe that my constituents have been  through a


nightmare that no one should ever have to experience.


              That's why I  am pleased that  your


Proposed Plan takes an Important step in allowing the


residents to move forward with their lives.   I know


that EPA has proposed the Grand Street site for


Inclusion on the Sniper fund National Priorities List


and I am confident that you understand the  importance


of making a decision on this as quickly as  possible.


If this site is listed, the residents will  be able  to
-------
                                                  37



focus on permanent relocation.  As you know, they are



most anxious to begin that process so they can



rebuild their lives and plan for their futures.



              I'd also like to commend you and your



agency — this is a letter to Jeanne Fox, by the way



— for the speed with which you have handled this



environmental disaster.  Although the residents were



obviously extremely upset about their situation, my



office heard over and over again about how helpful



and supportive EPA has been.



              I have heard from many of the residents



that without the Superfund program, they might have
                                                •


been out on the streets.  Thankfully, the Superfund



Removal Program has covered the costs of their



relocation and new rents.  Many of the former



residents would have had nowhere to turn without this



help.



              The Grand Street site story is an



Important one that I will continue to tell Congress



as we move through the Superfund reauthorization



process this year.  This critical program is not just



about cleaning up abandoned, forgotten toxic waste



sites in the middle of nowhere, it is also about



protecting the health, safety and sanity of Americans



who find themselves in the middle of an environmental
-------
                                                  J8
nightmare they never anticipated.
              I look forward to working closely with
you on the cleanup of this site and on the relocation
of the former residents.
              Sincerely, Frank R. Lautenberg, U.S.
Senator.
              Thank you.
              MS. SEPPI:  Senator Kenny, I apologize,
I didn't mention your name.  If you would like to
please come up and read the statement from Senato-r
Torricelli's office.
              SENATOR KENNY:  I have two statements,
one from Senator Torricelli and one from myself.*
              Senator Torricelli's statement.
              Dear Mr. Hansen:
              I am writing to offer my support on
behalf of the residents of 722 Grand Street, Hoboken,
New Jersey and the proposed remediation plan for the
site.  I would urge that you pursue all viable
options, so that this matter is resolved quickly and
effectively.  It is imperative that the needs of the
residents of this building remain first and  foremost.
              I concur with your agency's
recommendation that the site be placed on the
Superfund National Priorities List as an emergency
-------
                                                  39
site and I will work to ensure that this
recommendation is implemented.  I would also urge the
EPA to formally adopt the Proposed Plan.  Clearly the
residents cannot return to the site, it must be
demolished and appropriately disposed of.
              I must commend the EPA for the
cooperation and willingness that it has demonstrated
in working with the residents of the building and
local government to ensure that the best interests of
the residents and the community are protected.   £he
ongoing communication and support has been
encouraging.  It is imperative that this support
                                                »
continue as the permanent relocation plan proceeds.
It is essential that the owners secure a fair
settlement and remuneration for their losses.   The
proposed plan appears to be the most protective of
human health and the environment and will ensure that
this devastating problem is finally resolved.
              I will work to support your efforts and
will continue to monitor the status of the cleanup.
I am hopeful that this most unfortunate situation
will be resolved quickly and effectively-
              Sincerely,
              Robert G. Torricelli, U.S. Senator.
              I represent Hoboken in the New Jersey
-------
                                                  40


State Senate.


              Dear Mr. Hansen:


              The first paragraph is similar  to


Senator Torricelli's.  I will go on to say that the


Grand Street Artists Partnership pooled their


resources and purchased this building in August 1993.


They followed all the proper procedures to ensure


this former Industrial site was safe for residential


use and, after receiving the required permits, they
                                                • *

began to move in and renovate their individual units


for living/work space.  During this renovation


period, mercury contamination was found throughout
                                                *

the building and the Hoboken Health Department took


the unusual course of action of ordering the  families


to vacate the premises.  The Health Department tested


the residents for mercury and many were found to have


elevated levels of mercury in their system.


              It has been over a year and a half that


the families have been living in temporary housing


and with the uncertainty of what the future holds for


them.  Some of their personal belongings remain in


the sealed building while others are in storage.


They have been living with the physical effects of


exposure to mercury, severe emotional distress and


financial constraints.  The Grand Street artists  have
-------
                                                  41
suffered a great deal during the last two years.
Having closure and the need to move on with their
lives is important for them.
              After reviewing your Proposed Plan for
the Grand Street Mercury Site and meeting with the
residents of 722 Grand Street, I believe that the
safest long-term remedy for the site should be
permanent relocation of the former residents,
acquisition of the property by the USEPA and
demolition of the property, while at the same time
ensuring that the land is restored to an
environmentally safe use.  It is in the best interest
                                                •
of the community to follow this course of action and
Important that the USEPA not change the preferred
course of action.
              Thank you.
              MS. SEPPI:  Thank you, Senator.
              From Congressman Menendez's office,
Jose Manuel Alvarez.
              Mr. Alvarez.
              MR. ALVAREZ:  Jose Alvarez, District
Director for Congressman Menendez.  I'd like to read
a statement.
              And it says: there are a few events
which define the essence of the law and illustrate
-------
                                                  42
the nature of our social contact.  We are present
here in Hoboken at such an event.  Our primary
concern is the relocation of the prior residents of
this building and the plan for remediation of the
building and soil on Grand Street.  But looming
behind the human tragedy are powerful forces seeking
to permanently alter the nature of the Superfund law.
These forces are plotting to destroy the very fabric
of protection for our citizens and greatly weaken the
safeguards against contamination each one of us has
come to expect.  This week there will be attempts in
Congress to cut $650 million and cripple the
Superfund program.
              Superfund has been under severe
criticism from special interests who seek to shift
the cost of chemical contamination from those who
have profited from pollution to the general taxpayer
or in this case even the victims.  The criticisms of
the Superfund program include: cleanups take .too
long; cost too much; require toe much cleanup;
charges of speculative science and liability that is
too strict.
              722 Grand Street is the reason for
Superfund.  It is a tale of a creeping/ insidious
terror that grew to horrid proportions.  For several
-------
                                                   43
months residents did not know what they were facing.
Local officials quickly found the problem was beyond
their resources and turned to us and to USEPA.  In
the midst of a severe snowstorm and general federal
shutdown, the EPA Superfund attacked the problem and
got the residents out.
              Here is what we know about this site.
It was used until 1950 as a factory for making
mercury vapor lamps.  There appears to be one primary
                                                ••
responsible party.  There was no use of mercury after
1950.
              This is not an abstract case of
                                                *
contaminated soil/ groundwater contamination or
threat to the food chain.  People have been
contaminated, contaminated severely.  Thirty-one
people associated with the building were examined,
twenty urine samples had mercury concentrations equal
to or greater than 20 micrograms per liter; 20
micrograms per liter is the upper limit of the
background concentration for mercury in adults.
Residents had five times the baseline risk assessment
for mercury exposure.
              This is not fear mongering.  I am
worried about my constituents.  They are innocent
victims.  They did nothing to knowingly place
-------
                                                  44

themselves in harm's way.  There was a time bomb

waiting in their home.  It is a poison that we have

known about since antiquity.  It has invaded their

bodies and we know who put it there.  Who should make

this right?  They have no homes.  Their lives'

investments were permanently taken from them.  What

are the long-term effects of this on our fellow

citizens?

              I want my constituents made whole.  I
                                                »•
want their lives returned to normality.  I want this

nightmare ended for them and I want justice for the

residents, the public and their environment.
                                                »
              Thank you for giving me the opportunity

to give you my views.

              MS. SEPPI:  Thank you.

              Assemblyman Romano,  I believe you have

a statement.

              ASSEMBLYMAN ROMANO:   Thank you.

Assemblyman Louis Romano.  I represent Hoboken, along

with my colleague, Rudy Garcia.

              To everyone in the audience, I also

welcome you here this evening and ask that you feel

free to voice your concerns about the unfortunate, at

best, trying situation in which the former residents

of the "mercury condos" find themselves.
-------
                                                  45
              Over a year ago, sixteen families were
forced out of the building they called home, after a
high concentration of mercury was discovered.  This
building has apparently harbored this contamination
for years; however, it only became apparent during
the renovation of certain apartments on the third
floor in January of 1995.
              It has been determined that the
building was a former industrial site and the
                                                «.
location a home for many businesses, before it was
purchased in 1993 by the Grand Street Artists
Partnership during these renovations.
                                                »
              It is not my purpose to question how
these residents were allowed to move into a building
of this nature.  More importantly, it was ultimately
discovered and documented that mercury vapors have
permeated the air, causing several residents to
experience mercury level in their urine.
              Now, the federal environmental
officials have decided to tear down the mercury
contaminated building, a building that was home to so
many artists prior to their "eviction".  They are
telling us that it will cost approximately $14
million to complete their plan.
              The former residents of this building
-------
                                                                 46


 1            hsve been living in limbo for the  past  year.   Living


 2            out of boxes.


 3                          I am here tonigi-.t to urge an  assurance


 4            from the EPA that these displaced  residents will  be


 5            adequately reimbursed for their investment.   This EPA


 6            remedy must ensure that the affected families will


 7            finally be put on the final road to recovery.   Also,


 8            I might add that I have introduced legislation along


 9            with my colleague Rudy Garcia, and Senator Kenny  has


10            the Senate version of a bill that would prevent this
                                                              »«

11            sort of thing from ever happening again.  My  bill


12            will require any person who constructs new


13            residential housing on any property that was


14            previously used as an industrial establishment, will


15            have to investigate the property and make sure that


16            no hazardous contaminants exist.


17                     '     Thank you for your Indulgence in


18            allowing me to express my views this, evening.


19                          MS. SEPPI:  Thank you.  Thank you,


20            Senator Romano.


21                          Assemblyman Rooney,  I believe you have


22            a statement also.


23                          ASSEMBLYMAN ROONEY:  Assemblyman John


24            Rooney-


25                          Lou, don't go away,  I want to see you
-------
                                                  47

later.


              As Lou'3 colleague on the other side of


the aisle, the Republican side, my name is John


Rooney.   I'm from Bergen County but I have some


friends  who lived through this, the Bocchinos


for a year and a half, and I feel very badly for


them.


              I've gone through the paperwork, and I


want to compliment the EPA, I've seen some action


here in a record period of time.  Amazingly,  which


maybe the residents can't appreciate, but you have


done with due diligence, you've been out there and
                                                »
you've done the right thing, but I can't say that for


the rest of the process, and that's why I'm here.


              As Vice Chairman of the Environment


Committee, I want to find out why the process failed


these people.  This process should not fail people in


the State iof New Jersey, it should protect them.  The


ECRA process, the Environmental Cleanup


Responsibility Act is just that, it was cleanup


responsibility for the polluters.  This should have


been a red flag in everybody's book, but it wasn't.


These people should not have been allowed to move


into the building.

              The building across the street was red
-------
                                                  48

flagged and condemned just three years  earlier,  and

it was also by the same company.  So  for  those people

from GE who are here today. Generous  Electric, who

have given us PCBs in our rivers and  mercury  in  our


buildings and mercury in the urine of our residents,

I say thank you, yes, Generous Electric, where the

hell have you been?

              I'm fed up with hearing that these

people are going to contest this.  The  right  thing to

do is belly up to the bar, pay the tab, do the rl'ght

thing.  Do the courteous thing, the gentlemanly

thing, the correct thing.  Don't be fighting  this
                                                •
process,  because that's the only thing  that's going

to prevent these people from getting  what they

deserve,  what they should have.  Don't  use the legal

system as your crutch and your shield and spend more

damn dollars, and what Congressman Menendez says that

the process is being attacked, it is  being attacked

by people in Washington who are fed up  seeing the

lawyers take the money out of the fund, the

Superfund.  That's where it is going.   That's the

problem with the system today.  The corporations of

America are losing their responsibility, their good


neighbor appeal to the people.  I wouldn't buy

another GE product if it was the last product on the
-------
                                                   49
shelf.
              From what I've seen here and what I've
seen on my committee/ we are dealing right now with
the dredge spoils in our harbors.  Our harbors are
going to be closed if they don't dredge them out.
The northern part is contaminated with PCBs;  GE.  The
southern part, Diamond Shamrock with the dioxins.
That's the problem with our system today,  we are
paying for it.  We are the ones who have been left a
legacy by corporations who have no conscience.
              So I applaud you, I'm sorry I don't
have a typed presentation to give you, I'll try and
work on one, but I want to see that this process*
works and I also want to go back to the Legislature
and find out why it failed, why the DEP didn't  shut
it down to begin with.  I know we have
responsibility, and I'm going to look that up on my
own.
              I thank you very much for allowing me
to speak.
              MS. SEPPI:  Thank you, Assemblyman
Rooney-
              Jane Gardner from GE.  I believe you
have a statement.
              MS. GARDNER:  It is kind of a hard act
-------
                                                                50


 1            to fellow there.



 2                          I want to thank you fcr the  opportunity


 3            for General Electric to speak.  I offer Assemblyman


 4            Rooney, we will be happy to meet with him  and  talk



 5            about any of the issues he raised tonight, but I



 6            would like to keep this comment to zhe Grand Street


 7            site and not get into other issues.


 6                          I am Manager and Counsel for GE's


 9            Environmental Remediation Program.


10                          We spend & tremendous  amount of mo'ney


il            every year, in contrast to what Mr.  Rooney said, $100


12            million we spend in our environmental remediation
                                                              *

13            work throughout this country,  so we  stand by this


14            record.


15                          We have some difficult problems, we are


16            working on them.  I have been involved in this


17            process, the Grand Street site,  since we first


16            learned about it in early 1996.   For those of you who


19            don't remember and what some people  said today, there


20            was a blizzard going on, it was one  of the largest


21            blizzards of the century; the government was


22            essentially closed down.  We learned from the TV


23            there were 17 families that were evacuated from their



24            homes or were going to be very shortly.



25                          Shortly thereafter, we received  a
-------
                                                   51

letter from the residents' lawyers, initially asked

GE for assistance, that was on a Friday night.  I

remember it very well, we met through the weekend  as

the blizzard was starting and increasing and at GE

headquarters.  These were high level meetings.  There

were a lot of people involved from all over.  We came

up with a plan.  We gave money, relocation assistance

and offered medical assistance to the residents,  we

stepped forward, we made that offer before we had the

opportunity to investigate the facts.

              Since then, we have learned a great

deal about the facts that bring us here tonight.  We
                                                *
have asked ourselves some key questions, and I'd like

to raise them tonight.  How did these people buy a

factory to live in?  How did they get to stay?  How

did EPA pick a remedy that will destroy a functional

building, pay back the investors double the

ill-advised investments they put into a building,

knowing of the mercury problems, ignoring their

consultants, and hiding that fact to everyone that

could help them prevent the situation they created?

The answers are very startling.

              They bought a factory.  It was an

almost 100 year old factory that had been used

properly for a factory almost its entire life.  GE
-------
                                                                52

 1            operated  it as a factory, that's  true.   I  think  it is

 2            very obvious, we scld it as a  factory- we  sold it to

 .3            people who then operated it as a  factory,  they sold

 4            it again  as a factory-  It was used as a factory

 5            almost during its entire life.  During GE's  time, it

 6            was a clean factory, and by the accounts of  neutral

 7            observers and its own employees,  it was operated

 6            safely and cleanly.  Even by modern standards, the

 9            factory meets the air stancards for mercury  that the

10            federal government has established as safe for

11            industrial use.  It should never  have become a

12            residence, and just a modicum of  due care at any
                                                               »
13            point along the way by the seller, David Pascale, or

14            the buyers, would have prevented  all the expenses

15            that EPA  is proposing today.  Tearing down a factory

16            that is safe to use as a factory  today is not an

17            appropriate use of the Superfund.  Paying relocation

16            expenses  to reimburse negligent investment risks are

19            not an appropriate use of the Superfund.

20                          The laws of the State of New Jersey

21            were broken.  The seller, David Pascale, didn't

22            disclose  the mercury corrtamination or historic use  of

23            the building, even though he knew of the prior

24            mercury operations because his father, a long  time

25            employee  of the early years of mercury operations,
-------
                                                  53

had told him so, and had even showed him one of the

old Cooper Hewitt mercury vapor lamps saved as a

family memento.  The state has revoked David

Pascale's ECRA approval to transfer the property, on

the grounds that he did not, this is a quote,

"accurately depict the full type, extent, and

magnitude of the contamination."  There is an ongoing

state criminal investigation of the ECRA application.

              The original partners had years of

experience in building renovations and had numerous

other development projects.  They could have

prevented all of the current situation by doing just
                                                •
a basic environmental inspection of the factory.

According to their consultant, he was not even

allowed to inspect the building above the basement

level.  As EPA itself has recognized in writing that

when someone buys a non-residential property for

residential use, they have a heightened duty of due

care in investigating the appropriateness of that

property for the converted use.  The buyers here were

told the same thing in writing by their own

environmental consultant, and were told by that

consultant that the NJDEP was not looking at the case

as if it was a sale for conversion to residences.

The buyers could have notified the government when
-------
                                                   54
they first found mercury in 1993, when  they  found  it
again in 1994, when they found it again  in 1995, and
all throughout that year they could have canceled  the
contract and extricated themselves.  They could have
followed their consultants' advice in early  1995 and
notified the authorities.  They could have not voted
to conceal the information from the authorities as
late as November 1995.  Their conduct was
unreasonable, and neither GE nor any other taxpayer
should be asked to ball them out.
              GE objects to the proposed remedy as
scientifically unsound, inconsistent with the
National Contingency Plan,  and an irresponsible and
politically motivated waste of taxpayer money-  While
GE has been unable to review all the documents that
indicate EPA's deliberations on this proposed remedy,
since EPA has shrouded them in secrecy, the documents
which EPA has released show that EPA has ignored the
criteria upon which it is obligated to base a remedy
selection decision, it has "stretched the law" for
the residents in the words of the former residents
themselves, and has turned Superfund on its head in
order to accommodate those who created the very
problems EPA now wants to fix.
              EPA's remedy decision Is not based on
-------
                                                  55

sound science.  To the contrary, it is based on

arbitrary numbers, i.e., I go first to federal

standards that its sister agencies have set for

workplace exposure.  Two government agencies have set

two different exposure numbers for worker exposure to

mercury.  The Occupational Safety and Health Agency,

(OSHA), which governs workplace exposure, has set a

standard of 100 micrograms per cubic meter, the

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

(NIOSH) has set a standard of 50.  A private grotrp,

the American Council of Governmental Industrial

Hygenists (ACGIH), recommends a standard of 25.
                                                »
Without citing any appropriate or relevant basis, EPA

here says this remedy for industrial use must meet

0.44, which is 56 times lower than the lowest level

the U.S. government says is safe for workers who work

with mercury every day-  EPA picked this number by

taking the lowest of three published standards, the

only one not set by the government itself, and then

arbitrarily cut it by 90%.   It then took the

remaining 10% of the lowest standard, and cut it

arbitrarily 67% more, and finally took that number

and cut it almost another 47%, by assuming that each

worker is breathing in double the amount of air  for

eight hours a day than you and I breathe.  Its
-------
                                                  56



calculations are unsupportable and bad science.



              We're concerned that tearing this



building down could be a significant disruption to



this community-  It could require thousands cf truck



loads of demolition debris driving through the



community on a daily basis for days and weeks en end.



As a 123-year-old company that we were founded by



Thomas Edison, General Electric has considerable



expertise in safely operating mercury lighting



factories.  GE bel.eves that the building can and
                                                *•


should be returned to productive use as a commercial



or industrial building.  It can be readily and safely

                                                •

remediated to industrial use, consistent with the



administration's long standing support of Brownfields



redevelopment.  Since the building can be safely



re-utilized, EPA exceeds its authority by demolishing



a safe factory.  General Electric has offered,



numerous times to the agency at various levels, to



remediate the factory to ensure safe levels for



future industrial use.  We continue to stand by that



offer.



              We ask EPA to reconsider its decision



to demolish a building that, can be readily returned



to safe and beneficial use.  GE will continue, as it



does, to abide by its environmental responsibility
-------
                                                   57



under the law; however, we ask that EPA hold



accountable those who are responsible for the



imprudent conversion of this factory in determining



who should pay if the proposed remedy goes forward.



GE also proposes that EPA submit this proposed plan



to the National Remedy Review Board or a panel of



independent experts to review the science of this



decision.  We are not afraid of a fair or impartial



process.  We ask EPA to administer the Superfund



program, as it is mandated to do by Congress, inr-a



fair, scientifically sound, and impartial way.



              MS. SEPPI:  I thank you for the



comments/ Jane.



              Patrick McNamara, would you like to



make a statement?



              MR. McNAMARA:  Good evening, my name is



Patrick McNamara.



              I'm here on behalf of Mr.  Anthony



Mastromauro, who is present here this evening.  He is



the owner of one of the units in this building.  He



is not a member of the Grand Street Artists



Partnership.



              I'd like to commend each of the many



speakers before, in expressing the residents' need



for permanent relocation.  As people at EPA are aware
-------
                                                  58
of, people who lived in this building  the last year
and a half or so, going through  the  end  of 1995, have
had their lives turned upside down,  and  Mr.
Mastrornauro is no exception.  He made  a  very
substantial investment in this property,  not only to
buy it, but to renovate it and to make it  something
that he would be proud of and to live  in  for many
years.  And he wanted me to make sure  that it is
clear tonight on the record and he will also express
in writing, that he has no intention of ever sett-ing
foot in that building again under any circumstances.
              Therefore, he has asked me  tonight to
ask the agency to stand by the remedy that it has
selected with regard to demolition of this building
and giving financial restoration/ not only for Mr.
Mastromauro, but to the other residents of the
building so they can get on with their lives.
              We strongly ask EPA to move  forward,
not only on this but also with the issuance  of the
Record of Decision, which is necessary to  put the
remedy that you put forward to the public.   We also
look forward to seeing the site finalized  and put on
the NPL.  That's necessary and needs to move forward
as soon as possible.
              Lastly, we want to thank the EPA,  we
-------
                                                  59



know you've tried to make the best effort possible



with what is a very cumbersome and regulatory



framework within Superfund, from my own experience



over the last 10 years, at sites surrounding the



northeast.  I know that Superfund really isn't



designed to deal with this type of situation, and if



there's one thing I can ask you as an attorney who is



representing people like Anthony, I've represented



municipalities, I've represented corporations like



GE, although I haven't represented them, at other.



Superfund sites, this process doesn't work when it



comes to a building like this one, it doesn't work



when it comes to dealing with peoples' lives.  It was



designed to deal with the chemical control sites of



the world.  It was designed to deal with the dump



sites.  It wasn't designed to deal with the trauma



that these people have been put through and the



trauma that they are continuing to live with every



single day.  And if there's one thing I can urge you



as an attorney who has experience with the Superfund



process and all talk of Superfund reform, so called



being real this year for the first time since 1994,



is to go back to people like Jeanne Fox and say



whatever you do to fix the program, there's a clear



need to fix it to create a separate program to deal
-------
                                                   60

with sites like 722 Grand Street  because,  as  horrible

a thought as it is, and even though  in New Jersey,

which has, except for California, the most stringent

environmental laws in the country, it's not

inconceivable r,hat this will happen  again  and  that

there will be another site,  especially with the

effort to redevelopment urban areas  and the

Brownfields initiatives that have been taken at the

state and federal level, that this is going to happen

again.  If it's net mercury, it will be lead,  anS 50

or 60 years ago it was commonplace in an industrial

facility that no one would ever put  in a residence.
                                                »
              Thank you.

              KS. SEPPI:  Thank you, Mr. McNamara.

              Now, before we get to  the residents, I

believe Dr. Gochfeld,  would  like to make a  statement

on some of the residents.

              DR. GOCHFELD:   My name is Michael

Gochfeld.  Thank you for the opportunity to address

you.

              I was very impressed with the

presentation that our visitors from  EPA made,  both

with the depth and clarity,  and I think it is  very

important to keep in mind the difficulty at reaching

these numbers in the amount of time  it takes  to come
-------
                                                  61
up with risk assessments of this sort.
              I'm an Occupational Physician and
Clinical Professor of Environmental and Community
Medicine at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in
Piscataway, New Jersey.  I have been on the faculty
there since 1980, and have specialized in problems
related to lead, mercury, and other toxic materials
in the environment.  I've done a lot of work with
hazardous waste sites.  Prior to that, I directed the
Division of Environment and Occupational Health at
                                                • •
the New Jersey Department of Health, and was directly
involved in discussions regarding evacuation of
residents around several sites.  And even before
that, I performed occupational medicine examinations
of workers in a number of north Jersey factories that
handled various forms of mercury.
              722 Grand Street was before my time,
however, those factories, those mercury factories are
now gone from New Jersey.
              With regard to the 722 Grand Street
building, our Environmental and Occupational Health
Sciences Institute was contacted by the Agency  for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry  (ATSDR) just
before Christmas 1995.  And Dr. Howard Kipen, our
division director, participated in the public meeting
-------
                                                  62


here.  After the evacuation, during  January  and March


1996, 21 adults from the building were  evaluated at


our clinical center, mainly by Dr. Iris  Udasin, our


environmental specialist, and by Dr. Nancy Fiedler,


our clinical psychologist, with regard  to medical,


neurobehavioral and psychological consequences of the


mercury exposure.  This work was supported by ATSDR.


              I represent not only my own medical


experience and opinions tonight, but also the


experience of my colleagues who participated in that
                                                •.

first wave of examinations.


              We found evidence of mercury-related


neurobehavioral impairment in a number of the


residents, and overall there was a significant


negative correlation between their mercury levels and


their performance on tests known tc be affected by


mercury.  In other words, those with the higher


mercury levels had reduced muscular coordination in


their hands and fingers and showed evidence of tremor


and had other findings.


              Now, nearly 18 months later, we're


going to begin to re-evaluate these residents to


determine how much of their function has now


returned, as well as to address any residual physical


and psychological consequences.
-------
                                                  63



              In addition to the neurobehavioral



performance, Dr. Fiedler tested certain psychological



measures which showed a severe level of psychological



distress among most of the residents, in relation to



their sudden evacuation from the homes in which they



had invested large sums of money as well as many



loving hours.  They voiced anger, frustration, as



well as anxiety about their future.  Many of the



residents we tested had clinically significant



psychiatric problems resulting from a combination of



the mercury exposure and the need to be evacuated.



This exposure to mercury had resulted in a severe



disruption and they had lost control of their lives.



              Had they not been exposed to very high



levels of mercury, they would not have experienced



these disruptions and would not be suffering their



current distress, and I'd be home in an air



conditioned room.



              Now 18 months later, still living in



temporary quarters, their lives still on hold, that



early anxiety was certainly warranted.



              Now already most of my remaining



remarks have already been stated and in some cases



more eloquently and in some cases more loudly by



prior speakers who have drafted the same analysis.
-------
                                                  64

              Social scientists have studied other

populations forced to relocate temporarily or

permanently because of flooding, war, or other

disasters, both natural and man made.  And I'll be

reviewing that literature and will share it with you

at a later date.

              Our observations of the Grand Street

residents are consistent with the stresses over which

people have no control but arc particularly damaging.

In that sense, the residents of the Grand Street..

building are not  unique, many other communities have

had disasters thrust upon them.  But in another sense
                                                »
they are unique.

              People whose homes are rendered

uninhabitable by  flood or fire eventually collect

insurance and rebuild their homes and lives.   The

victims of Grand  Street mercury have not been able to

do so.

              Now, we all suffer various losses in

our lives and we  admonish ourselves and others to

"get on with your life".  The victims of Grand Street

mercury have not  been able to get on with their

lives.  They are  trapped by forces over which they

have no control and are increasingly vulnerable to

psychophysiological damage.  Even if the actual
-------
                                                  65
neurological consequences of their mercury poisoning
eventually recover, the scarring from having lost
control of their lives and being on hold for so long
may leave a long-term or permanent mark.
              How long can people be "on hold"?  We
are looking in the literature for answers to that.
Certainly a few months is tolerable, and most of us
have experienced such periods,  for example, between
jobs.  But the Grand Street victims have been on hold
already for 18 months.
              I don't think it would be realistic to
expect them to simply wait on hold for 18 months,
much less the 40 months projected by the EPA, if they
were to re-occupy the building after remediation.
              They need a rapid and definitive
solution to "get on with their lives",  I believe they
call that permanent relocation.
              Although I have not personally
evaluated whether the Grand Street building could be
remediated to residential standards, I do know from
personal experience here in New Jersey, that
Superfund remediations rarely proceed quickly or
smoothly.  Often years go by before the remediation
even begins, years of remedial investigations,
feasibility studies, remediation alternatives, and
-------
                                                  66
review at the state and  federal  level.
              Assuming that it were to begin
immediately, it would mean that  the victims would
have been on hold for five years.  I don't think
anybody would consider that a realistic expectation.
              From the community medicine point of
view that I represent here tonight, it is entirely
inconceivable that the Grand Street residents should
be subjected to waiting for remediation.
              In addition, for many and perhaps all
of the Grand Street victims,  and we just heard this
mentioned by the previous speakers, the building has
become a symbol of what has gone wrong in their
lives.  If it were magically rendered habitable
overnight and they were required to return, it would
be a constant reminder to them of a very unpleasant
event and period in their lives.   Although we have
not studied this for each individual,  I strongly
believe that it is not realistic to expect them to
return to this building which, once a.source of hope
for the future, has become a source of great pain.
              I concur with EPA's decision not to
remediate this building.  If it were remediated, the
Grand Street victims should not be expected to return
there and, most importantly,  I urge a rapid
-------
                                                  67

resolution of the compensation issue so that these

victims can seek appropriate permanent solutions and

get on indeed with their normal lives.

              Thank you for this opportunity.

              MS. SEPPI:  Thank you, Doctor.

              Doctor, if you have an extra copy of

that statement, we would appreciate that for the

record also.  Is that an extra copy?

              DR. GOCHFELD:  She has one.

              MS. SEPPI:  I'd like to go on to some

of the residents, former residents have expressed an

interest in making statements or asking questions.
                                                »
              Curtis  Crystal.

              MR. CRYSTAL:   Curtis Crystal.

              I want to make my comments not only on

behalf of myself and my wife, but on behalf  of our

partners and would in what seemed like a wonderful

dream.  It was a wonderful dream in which we

transformed an idle, run down ghost of a building

into a thriving community of artists and artisans.

Through our hard work, sacrifice, determination,

resourcefulness, and stubborn perseverance against

great odds, we thought we had actually turned this

wonderful dream into a very wonderful reality.  And

we dreamed  for this city as well, for the community
-------
                                                   68
we wanted tc join together with  in  creating a bright
future.  We did not dream of the  living  nightmare
this has become for all of us.
              We had solved one of  the most difficult
challenges facing those cf us in  the arts:  how to
afford adequate housing that included the studio work
space we needed to practice our arts.  Our  solution
was to pool our resources and do  it ourselves.  We
designed our homes and studios in every detail.  We
had everything we needed for the rest of our  lives -
a wonderful home full of air, light and so  much space
to grow in, to raise families in, as well as  the work
space we needed to pursue our careers.  Everything
was thought out - door sizes to accommodate art
works, the elevator size, special fireproofing,
electrical wiring and water lines for future  needs,
gallery space, storage space.  We had all this common
space on the ground floor, and we planned a community
gallery, a space for concerts, performances,  and art
studios to hold classes for the community.   In short,
we had transformed this monthballed building  into  a
place full of creative life designed to accommodate
all our needs present and future, private and
professional.  Those of you who saw what we had
accomplished were amazed and let  me tell you,  so were
-------
                                                   69



we!  And in doing this, we discovered something more,



we discovered that yes, everybody dreams of



sheltering themselves in a secure and permanent home



of their own, but to build one's own home is the



moment in which we get to make one poem, at least, of



our lives which expresses us completely.



              Many of us were strangers at first who



were brought together by this shared dream.  Working



together, building together, learning to rely on each



other, deep friendships were formed.  Without
                                                • .


realizing it, we were building our own small



community, an extended family we could depend upon.



We looked forward to raising children together. 'We



looked forward to celebrating together, to sharing



all the new challenges the future held for us.   Now



we share the devastation of this tragedy.  Our family



has been torn apart, we are disbursed and let me tell



you, we are in pain.



              I can't begin to tell you of the



emotional devastation, the depression, the loss, the



effects from the express over the past nineteen



months.  How do you get rid of the horror, the trauma



of the way we were forced out of our homes and



studios.  Being surrounded by police, surveillance



helicopters flying overhead, not being able to leave
-------
                                                   70
the building with our possessions, being assailed  by
the press corps, our homes and studios invaded  by
police and government official of all stripes,  men in
"space suits" probing all over the place.  We felt
humiliated, scared, violated.  The stress of our
displacement, as well as the exposure we had to this
insidious toxin has brought on illness and suffering.
The uncertainty of our situation, the limbo we  find
ourselves in is numbing.  It is a daily struggle to
face our responsibilities and continue on with our
lives as indeed we must.
              We can only hope that all the parties
who played a part in what has be fallen us and this
community will come together in a spirit of
constructive cooperation to forward the remedy
recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency-
It has been nineteen months since we were evacuated
from our homes.  Nineteen months in temporary
relocation.  That is nineteen months of being in
limbo, displaced.  That is nineteen months with all
our financial resources, our life savings tied up.
Add to that the two and a half years we put into
creating and building this project, that comes  to
over four years of our lives already tied up in this!
              Now, after a year and a half of
-------
                                                  71

thorough study by the United States Environmental

Protection Agency, a recommendation has been made.

They have studied our building, they have studied us.

Studied and studied and studied.  It is clear by now

that this recommended plan is the only feasible plan

that can begin to heal this horrible tear to the

fabric of our lives, to the fabric of this community.

We fear for our futures.  Is it not enough that we

have to live with the fears for our health and the

health of our children for the rest of our lives?  Is
                                                • «
it not enough that we have to live with the

consequences of the ordeal of the evacuation and the

nightmare of displacement?  We fear we will neve"r be

able to replace what we had or afford anything close

to it.  Proceed with this plan with all due speed!

Restore something of our lives!  Restore our faith in

the system we relied upon to protect us and which

failed us.  Please don't fail us again!

              MS. SEPPI:  Thank you.

              Corinne Mulrenan.

              MS. MULRENAN:  I'm a former resident of

the building.  I was in 3C.  First I also want to

make this opportunity, I'm speaking for myself and

for my husband Michael and for Maxwell, and I want to

publicly thank EPA, you've been our allies at the
-------
                                                   72
most difficult time of my  life  and  I  just  want  to  say
thank you.
              A situation  like  this impacts  people in
different ways.  If you talk to all of  our neighbors,
each would tell you how it has  interrupted their life
and devastated their lives.  For Michael and I, we
had for many years before actually becoming  involved
with the building, dreamed about how we could create
the perfect home and we were pretty sure we  wanted to
do it in Hoboken, which we knew would be difficult.
We wanted a home that was large enough to  accommodate
two or three children, we wanted to have studio space
so that I could pursue a business, I do furniture
restoration, but I also wanted to be home  for my
children when that was necessary -
              And we also, if we stayed in Hoboken,
wanted parking.  So the building, when it  presented
itself, seemed like a perfect opportunity.   We had
already a built-in community, we had neighbors who
were nurturing, and we wanted to maintain  that.  We
wanted to start this part of our lives here.
              So when we finally did actually realize
that dream, it was without question, it was  the
hardest thing I have ever done but I think everyone
would agree it was really the most fulfilling
-------
                                                  73



achievement of my life and of Michael's life.  And it




was really quite a time to celebrate.  We lived in



the building for a year, and it was without question



the best year of my life.




              So obviously when we were abruptly



removed from the building, it was devastating, it was



overwhelming and it was surreal.  It was like waking



up in a bad movie of the week every day-  It was just



an unbelievable experience.




              Michael and I had to delay our
                                                • 4


pregnancy by six months because I was tested and



found that the levels of mercury were too high and



that had to dissipate, so we waited for six months.



              Thankfully last summer I was able to



become pregnant and as a result, Maxwell was born in



March of this year.  And he's wonderful, and he was
   v •


really a shining light in a very difficult time.



          j    But now I'm 38-years-old, and I cannot



help but think about a brother or sister for Max.



And when you're a woman and you're 38, you start



thinking about that clock ticking.  And what I know,



though, is that it would be very difficult for us to



make a decision to have another child while we are




living in this temporary situation.  It is like



everything is on hold and you can't move forward the
-------
                                                                74

 1            same wey you would when you're  not  in a situation.


 2            So when thinking about how this  has  really impacted


 3            my life, I would say that's the  most devastating part

 4            for me.  This may mean that Max  doesn't have a


 5            brother or sister down the road, because I can't deal


 €            with the obligations required of being in a situation


 7            like this and in dealing with two children and the


 8            responsibilities of family.  It  is too difficult.


 9                          So I'm asking EPA at this point to make

10            one of the most important decisions  of my life, and I
                                                              • *
11            believe that some real thorough testing was  done,


12            based on what I've read and I've had explained to me,

13            and you've always been very good about answering- my

14            questions and making sure I understand what  I'm


15            hearing.  The building is a toxic site and I do

16            believe for the community it should  be removed.  And


17            of course I also feel that myself, my family, and my

18            neighbors should be permanently relocated as quickly


19            as possible.  It is the only way that we can get on


20            with our lives.  And basically I guess what  it comes


21            down to is ray future, our future is  in your hands.


22                          Thank you.

23                          MS. SEPPI:  Thank you,  Corinne.


24                          Mark Graham.


25                          MR. GRAHAM:  I appreciate this
-------
                                                  75


opportunity to speak.



              My wife and I were introduced to this


project in October 1992, and became actively involved


in December of that year.  It took the group of us


another nine months to successfully purchase 722


Grand Street, and then another two and a half years


to see completion on the horizon.  It was at that


point we discovered we might never reach that


horizon, when we discovered that over half of the


residents that had just turned themselves inside out
                                                » «

on this project had elevated levels of mercury in


their bodies.


              We succeeded at Grand Street where.


other groups in the past, including professional


developers, had failed: we took an empty building on


a half-empty street in a relatively dead section of


Hoboken, and self developed it into living units that


were legally zoned for artists to work and live, the


first, and still the only ones of their kind.   Within


one week after we received Final Site Plan Approval


from the City of Hoboken, real estate signs reading


"Lofts for Sale" and "Lofts for Rent" appeared on


buildings across both streets from our building,  we


were the ground breakers in Hoboken, we did it


totally on our own, with a tremendous amount of work
-------
                                                  76

and a tremendous amount of debt,  and  we  have lost it


all, except for the debt.


              I have a sense of pride being  a part of

a group that had the courage and  the  audacity to take

on a challenge like this.  In this national  climate

of worshipping the incividual, the self-starters, the

risk-takers, we are the quintessential group.  We

were also exceptionally cautious.  We Insisted on

documentation assuring us of the  safety of this

building for residential use.  When we received these
                                                • •
written assurances, we felt we were safe.  In a

broader sense, that sense of safety is gene,

forcefully replaced with an underlying distrust and

constant stress droning within us.  My wife  has

developed a cardiac arrhythmia, and ten months after

the evacuation, I found myself in the hospital with

chest pains and elevated blood pressure.  My wife was

over three months pregnant during the evacuation, and

worry for the future of our son's health is

relentless.

              The reality that brings us here tonight

never should have happened.  With our caution during

the pre-purchase environmental review of the

building, this message of "Unfit  for  Human


Habitation" was beyond comprehension.  The resulting
-------
                                                   77


evacuation was absolutely surreal, nightmarish.  To


me, we appeared as zombies, dragging our two plastic


bags of belongings down through the building, silent


and numb with disbelief.  I feel echoes of this


disbelief within our group to this day.


              With the emergence of this nightmare


the EPA appeared.  As the group of us were in a


highly agitated state, the EPA acted as a reference


point of sanity and reassurance.  If it were not for


the information, assistance, and support the EPA
                                                •,

provided, we would have been, in addition to


everything else, homeless and bankrupt.  I challenge


any of the federal officials in Washington as we-11 as


any corporate entities involved to undertake to


lecture on the extreme environmental positions, or


the lack of importance of the EPA to be silent for


just a brief time and open their eyes to the


realities of the EPA's contributions to the group of


us and to this community.  They might learn that, if


the EPA can be accused of having an agenda, it is


essentially to protect citizens from being poisoned


and to help those who have already been poisoned.


              The EPA has been meticulous and


thorough in their handling of the research which


results in this  recommendation to demolish our homes.
-------
                                                  78
The realiz^tion of this termination creates  an  ache
that will last a very long time.  But it  is  the right
thing to do, for us and for the surrounding
community.
              For my family and for the group of us,
I thank the EPA for its intense efforts on our
behalf.  You have contributed to showing us  that a
sense of stability in our lives is coming in the
future, so that we can move on from this suspended
animation in which we find ourselves.
              MS. SEPPI:  Eileen Hoffman.  I think
you had a statement.
              MS. HOFFMAN:  I just have a very  brief
statement, because my partners are speaking very
eloquently for all of us.   They speak for me as well.
              My husband and I had five times the
legal levels of mercury in our system when we were
evacuated, and we both experienced respiratory
problems and short-term memory loss.   And the. point
is Just the absolute terror that we experienced from
the unknown of having that in our system and what's
going to happen to us.  We've both had nightmares for
months, and it is just a heartbreaking decision to
come to, but I agree completely that the building
should be torn down.   I can't see that it could even
-------
                                                   79
be made healthy for industrial use, given what we
experienced in good conscience for other people
habitating that building.  Thank you.
              MS. SEPPI:  Thank you.
              Meredith Lippman.
              MS. LIPPMAN:  My name is Meredith
Lippman, my daughter is Morgan Steadwell, and my
husband is John Steadwell.
              I want to thank you for helping us so
much in the last 18 months.  What I really want to
say tonight to you and I guess to the City of
Hoboken, I came to Hoboken in 1978, I rented a two
story building on 8th and Jefferson, paid $3,600.00
                                                »
that I borrowed as a fixture fee for a loft that I
could live and work in.  Three years later,  my lease
was up, I was out, whatever money and rent I had
paid.  I had no fixtures.  I then took another place
which was a live and work loft at 805 Clinton Street,
which I stayed there for about eleven years paying
rent, building walls, putting in toilets, sanding and
painting floors, to have a place where I could live
and make my art.
              I've done two lofts in New York for
members of my family, sanded I think probably six
thousand square feet of floors.  As an artist, I've
-------
                                                  80


always  found myself moving into  an  area,  in this case


it was  Hoboken, that was considered a  new frontier


and in  each case it was a rental and in each case I


lost my loft.  After eleven years at Clinton Street,


we had  the possibility of finally,  my  husband and I


and I think everyone else in the building,  of having


a studio and a living space.   Finally when  I  put up a


wall, we could call it ours.   And finally when I


sanded  a floor, it would be my floor.  And  finally


when I  had a studio, no one could tell me I  had to
                                                •.

pack up and leave or double the rent or get  a new


tenant or decide that now we were gentrified  and we


had to  leave.  The town was very welcoming to us "as


artists in '78, boomed in the '80s, and a lot more


artists came out to Hoboken.


              I can't express enough the sense of


loss of home, which for us is just so horrific and


was really emotionally devastating.  I think  we also


had the feeling that we put our trust in every agency


along the way over a number of years, we did


everything to code, we built everything to code, we


were inspected a zillion times, we were in City Hall


a zillion times.  We worked with the City of  Hoboken,


we worked with the state agencies, we worked  with


everyone that needed us to work with them to  create  a
-------
                                                   81

legal and inspection passing code building, as well


as individual spaces, to find out in six feet of snow


at 7:00 at night that we had to take two garbage


bags, plastic bags of clothing with us and we then


went to a hotel.


              You're aware that at that time we were


struggling to adopt a child, and my concern at that


time was to have a roof over our head, if Beijing


would allow me to have a child.  Without you in the


last 18 months, my daughter would essentially be
                                                • *

homeless.  There was no way, and I don't know that


the community is aware of this, that we all have been


carrying on mortgages, we've all been responsible for


taxes to the City of Hoboken.  We have insurance on


the building, and we have to live up to those


obligations.  And without your funding to help us


through, I think all the families would find


themselves unable to cope,  because we had drained all


our resources and our family's resources in putting


these spaces together.

              I urge the community, I beseech the


community to support your plan.  I beseech the


community to support you in moving this resolution


along as quickly as possible.  I have a child that's


going on two-years-old, I'd like to make some good
-------
                                                  82
decisions for school, for permanent housing  for her,
start to plan a future.  I'd like to see us  stop
being depressed.  I'd like to see us stop being
stressed out.  I'd also like to see the City of
Hoboken resolve that building.  I'd like to  see it
resolved and along with you in a way that would be
healthy for the community,  and along the goals of the
City of Hoboken.  And I would like a place to live
that I can call my own, and write a check each month
to pay a mortgage and live in the home that  I'm ..
paying the mortgage on, instead of what is going on
at this point.
              I thank you,  and I hope that this .
resolves itself quickly and we move into permanent
housing.  Thank you.
              MS.  SEPPI:  Thank you, Meredith.
              China.
              MS.  MARKS:  My name is China Marks.
              In 1979, I moved from Manhattan to
Hoboken, where I lived and made art in raw industrial
space on the top floor of Hoboken Glass at 805
Clinton Street.  Summers I baked and winters I froze.
The roof leaked and the rent kept rising.  But
Hoboken got into my blood and I couldn't imagine
living anywhere else.  Besides, without a car, how
-------
                                                  83

much farther out in New Jersey could I really go?  So

when in 1992 I had the chance to join a group of

artists developing a building for legal occupancy at

722 Grand Street, just a block away from where I was

already living, I felt lucky, very lucky.

              It was worth spending most of my

savings, attending endless meetings of our group,

working extra hours to make more money, calling in

favors from everyone I knew, doing a lot of the work

myself, going through all the inspections and
                                                • »
certifications, putting my own drawing and painting

on hold for months while I packed up twenty years of

art and supplies and disassembled and moved towejrs of

industrial shelving, and more -- whatever I had to do

in order to build an affordable studio of my dreams

in the town I already thought of as "home".

              In the process of building our lofts,

we also created a marvelous community of artists and

friends.  The city benefited more than culturally:

the apparent success of our project produced

substantial property taxes and contributed to the

development of the west side of Hoboken.

              Because in the renovation of 722 Grand

we complied with every regulatory and environmental

requirement and because I felt so safe and happy
-------
                                                  84
there, it was hard to believe that anything serious
could be wrong.  In the desperately painful and
difficult year and a half of exile, since we were
ordered out, I've learned otherwise -- I've learned
that mercury saturates our building, top to bottom,
and the soil around it.
              I support the EPA's proposal to
permanently relocate us  and to demolish the building
safely.  Hobcken must be made free of contamination
by mercury.  And if I can't go home, then give me
what I need to begin again.
              MS. SEPPI:  Thank you, China.
              Mat.
              MR. SCHLEY:  My name is Matt Schley.
I'm a former resident of 722 Grand Street.
              The first  thing I want to say, I'm very
pleased that the process is moving on.   I'm very
pleased EPA is recommending that my family be
permanently relocated.
              I and my family are trying to rebuild
our lives from crushed dreams.  The first year of our
dislocation, all we tried to do was hold on.  We
never unpacked many of our belongings until we had
been living in our temporary quarters for over a
year.  There Just seemed to be no point.  That was
-------
                                                   85

the problem, there didn't seem to be a point to many

things.  I had an overwhelming feeling of the

uselessness of many activities that I once took for

granted.  I feel like I live in limbo.  A place where

many of the things I took for granted are lost.  My

sense of control over my destiny, the sense of hope I

could give to my family, the sense that my hard work

would make a difference in my life, I believe these

things are necessary to have a happy and satisfying

life; they were taken away.
                                                • «
              I have struggled mightily with these

feelings.  I realize they are destructive to my well

being.  I feel as if I'm doing better, and as the

process moves along, there is reason for hope,  but I

still have trouble with every day things.

              For some reason I'm afraid or avoid
   9'
opening the mail.  I don't like to answer the phone.

I expect bad news at any moment.   I know these are

silly self-indulge phobias,  but it is how I feel.

Then sometimes I feel hopeful.   Reading the report

that I would be permanently relocated has given me

hope that there is a way out of my situation.  But I

am also afraid.  I am afraid to hope so much is

unknown.

              My son, as a classroom assignment, made
-------
                                                   86
a map of his bra.n.  I was at his  school  one  day
picking him up, and these brain maps of all the
children in his class were hanging on the wall
outside.  They were very colorful.  They had  in them
things like parents, toys, friends, sports, TV-  I
then came to my son's map.  He had many of these
things in his map in bright colors, but at least a
third of the map was colored in gray and had written
across it "Mercury Building".  That broke my heart.
Maybe one day it won't be such a big part of his
consciousness and he can think oi other things. "That
is the day I wait for.
              So I beg you to speed this process.
along, and to make clear to us not only that we will
be permanently located, but when this will happen.
              Thank you.
              MS. SEPPI:  Now, of the former
residents, that's all the cards I have.   If anyone is
interested in making a statement, if there's anyone
else at 722 Grand.
              Sultan, I'm sorry, I did have a card
for you I think.
              MR. CATTO:  Sultan Catto.
              I thank all the Senators,  Congressmen
and others, the Doctor and others who talked on
-------
                                                   87
behalf of. the decision of the EPA, including all the
members of the EPA, and what they've done for us,  for
our families.  I'm talking on behalf of my wife and
my children who are sitting in the back.
              Immediately after we were evacuated
into our hotel room, my older son started having all
kinds of traumatic problems.  Everyone living around
us continuously from morning to night in the middle
of that snowstorm talking about mercury poisoning and
so forth, made him think that we were somehow
poisoned and the smells in the air were bothering him
and his mother smelled and so forth,   we had to look
for a house to move out to,  and we found a house
where we have to live for the following year with
other families.  And then Matt and Barbara and Hank
moving in with us because they couldn't find a house
yet.  And after that, Nora and David living us for
the whole year, and at the end of the year,  housing
being sold and we had to move on again, carrying
everything into boxes, relocating from one place to
another continuously.  It is been really too much.
              And my oldest son, who was just an
eight-year-old child then, he was going through all
kinds of traumas.  And immediately, as soon as we
moved into the house, when I called up his
-------
                                                   88
pediatrician when things were getting worse,  he  said,
"It sounds like a brain tumor," so  I had to rush out
to Albert Einstein College to have  him checked for a
brain tumor.  And they finally determined it  was not
a brain tumor but it had to do with the trauma he was
experiencing, and I take him to a psychiatrist and he
couldn't even stand his mother in the house.
              Having to take him to school early in
the morning and having to come back from my work to
take him away from school and bring him with me  all
the way to New York and have him hang around with" me
and so forth, this was really too much for our family
and you can imagine what everybody else was goir\g
through, similar experiences at £ different level.
And we are still visiting a psychiatrist and so  forth
because of this situation.
              And the year and a half of living  with
total uncertainty, with emotional distresses,  with
financial losses, problems, living out of boxes,
moving from place to place, it is just not right.  We
need to move, we need to move forward.  We have  to go
on with our lives, and we have to rebuild our lives.
We need to be permanently relocated.  It is. a Just
thing to do and the only thing that I can perceive
that is the humanly thing that can be done for us is
-------
                                                   89



the permanently relocation and nothing else.



Otherwise, you know, you see how the situation is, it



is really terrible for all of us.



              Thank you.



              MS. SEPPI:  Thank you, Sultan.



              Any other former residents wish to make



a statement?



              Then I have some other cards here of



people who asked to make a statement, and I'm going



to apologize beforehand, I'm probably butchering^ a



lot of these names.



              The first one I have is Donna Cahill



from the Environment Committee of Hoboken.



              Let me just put that aside.



              Ignatius Camporeale.



              MR. CAMPOREALE:  My name is Ignatius



Camporeale, and I'm a resident at 628 Jefferson



Street, which is only a few blocks from here.



              I've been reading up on all the stories



and I just want to begin by saying how bad I feel for



all these residents and they've been through hell and



high water, and it is a shame that they had to go



through something like this.  Let's hope that we can



prevent this situation from happening in the future.



              One of the things that concerns me is
-------
                                                                 90


 1            I'm a  former meteorologist  with the  National  Weather


 2            Service in New York City, and  talk about  government


 3            cutbacks and we've heard some  of  that  tonight,  and I


 4            lost my Job because the Budget Service closed its


 5            office in midtown Manhattan, 30 Rockefeller Place,


 6            and I'm currently a freelance  meteorologist,  which


 7            means  I'm pretty much open  to  any opportunities  there


 6            may be in the private sector and  also  government


 9            service.  And I know that there are a  lot of  plans


10            that are gcing to be implemented  on how to go about
                                                              •»

11            cleaning this mess and weather, unfortunately, is one


12            of the elements that could come into play into how


13            speedy this process could be done, this cleaning, up


14            process.  And I heard about the blizzard we had in


15            1996,  I was on duty during that blizzard and  it did


16            paralyze this city for almost  a week.  I know what


17            these people went through when  they had to move out


18            of this building during the middle of one of  the


19            worst blizzards in the history  of this country, in


20            the history of New Jersey,  I should say-  And I'm


21            here just to offer my services  to anyone,


22            Environmental Protection Agency or anyone else  that


23            might be looking for someone such as myself to


24            provide the day-to-day guidance that might be needed


25            in doing this work, particularly  for those people who
-------
                                                  91



are going to be doing the cleaning work in the



building.  And I'm here to offer my services.  If



anyone wants the services, I'll be more than happy to



provide them any way that it could speed up this



process to get this project under way and to get



these people's lives back in order again.   I think



everyone would applaud that, and that's all I really



wanted to say-



              MS. SEPPI:  Is Donna back yet?



              MS. SILBER:  She's not back but can. I



speak for the Environmental Committee.



              MS. SEPPI:  Sure, yes.



              MS. SILBER:  My name is Cynthia Siiber.



              I'm here tonight representing the



Environmental Committee of Hoboken, which is a



nonprofit community organization.  We'd like to go on



record in support of the EPA's recommendation to



permanently relocate the former residents and to



safely demolish the Grand Street Mercury Site.



              We certainly have a great deal of



empathy  for the former residents and for all the



trauma that they've gone through.  We'd like to thank



the EPA  and would like to say that we appreciate



their professionalism.  They sought out the



Environmental Committee as one of the organizations
-------
                                                                 92


 1            in ^own, they sent out cards to notify our mailing


 2            list about tonight's public meeting and the  public


 3            comment period.  So your professionalism  is  greatly


 4            appreciated and it has certainly been the echo  to


 5            what the former residents have said.


 6                          I think one of the most frustrating


 7            things in observing all this  rom a distance is that


 8            these folks have followed the process and, quite


 9            frank.y, the various steps that they've gone through,


10            they've been let down.  And I think that no matter
                                                              • •

11            how wonderful the EPA has been, it car.'t take back


12            the distrust that these residents, as well as the


13            other citizens in Hoboken, have to question the .


14            process and how this happened in the first place.


15                          I encourage our elected representatives


16            at all levels of government to investigate and see


17            things put right, that this doesn't happen again.


18                          One of the other concerns we have,


19            since we know that a building across the street, as


20            someone defined as red flagged.  Is there any other


21            buildings within our area, is there any way an


22            investigation can be done of similar problems of


23            other industrial contaminants that might come


24            forward, when a building might be converted  from


25            industrial to residential space?  That's an  answer
-------
                                                  93

we'd like back, what possible steps can be taken to

investigate that, so this wouldn't happen again.

              We would hope that the process wouldn't

fail yet another group of people who were looking to

convert space.  That's something we would like to

pursue with you folks.  Once again, we hope that this

can move forward and to safely take this problem away

from us in Hoboken.  We thank you.

              MS. SEPPI:  Thank you, Cynthia.

              I know I'm not going to say this name
                                                • 4
right, Peter Homitzky.

              MR. HOMITZKY:  Peter Homitzky.

              I'm a property owner on Grand Stre^t in

Hoboken, a couple of blocks down from 722, and I urge

you to follow through with the recommendations,

because in spite of the GE representative's

incredibly disingenuous statement, I also have a home

in upstate New York on the Hudson River where  my kids

can't eat the fish that they catch thanks to GE, and

their attitude toward PCBs is somewhat, leave  it

alone and it will go away, it will go away by itself.

              As far as the people involved,  it is a

tragedy.  But apart from that, as I said, I live a

couple of blocks down on Grand Street, and supposing

there's a fire there, whatever mercury is contained
-------
                                                                 94

 1            In that building is going to go right  up  in  the  air

 2            in smoke and it is going to affect me.  I don't  think '

 3            it can be remediated, not in these quantities.   I  was

 4            very sarprised today at the levels, because  I thought

 5            they were far less.

 6                          And I also would like to take  this

 7            moment to apologize to the Bocchinos.  I

 8            got them into this mess by recommending this building

 9            to them.  I forever will feel like a smuck about

10            that.
                                                               »«
11                          In any case, thank you.

12                          MS. SEPPI:  Thank you.

13                          Richard Weinstein.

14                          MR. WEINSTEIN:  I just, want to make  a

15            few comments, mainly because I'm not a directly

16            affected citizen, I live downtown in Hoboken on

17            Bloorafield Street.  My name is Richard Weinstein.

18            I'm also an attorney practicing law in Hoboken, and I

19            spent eight and a half years with the Environmental

20            Protection Agency in Region 2.  It was during the

21            time when you were developing the CERCLA regulations

22            and legislation in 1980, I had been already  there

23            almost eight years.

24                          I just wanted to put into perspective,

25            if you haven't said so already, what the purpose of
-------
                                                   95
this meeting is, and I understand Lisa -- I'm sorry
what was her name?
              MS. SEPPI:  Lisa Jackson.
              MR. WEINSTEIN:  Lisa Jackson spoke in
the introductory remarks, I don't know if she put  in
the context in a legal sense what a hearing like this
is about.
              And unfortunately what I've heard
tonight, I've heard the EPA's technical evaluation of
this particular remedial action, the feasible study,
and the remedial investigation, but I haven't heard
any experts that have the qualifications that you
need to determine whether or not what you're
proposing is supportable by scientific and other
technical expertise.
              I don't know,  maybe I'm wrong,  I  don't
know if that's in the Record of Decision,  but I  think
that somebody should have been given an opportunity
to get an independent consultant in who could have
brought to bear his understanding of the situation
Just as you have gone through.  And I've worked on
Superfund cases where I've represented innocent land
owners who did that, and it was only when we did
that, that we could actually evaluate the EPA's
evaluation and the potentially responsible parties
-------
                                                                 96



 1            who have come here today and made a  statement  that



 2            they don't understand why EPA is recommending



 3            demolition of this site, when I haven't heard  them do



 4            anything less than a demolition so EPA could pick up



 5            the difference.  In other words, if  they were  willing



 6            to do half the cost due to cleanup less of a



 7            demolition, and then if EPA recommended the



 8            demolition any-ay, they cotld still  go ahead and do



 9            the demolition and pay the money out of the



10            taxpayers' pockets and seek to recover the money back
                                                              • •


11            from General Electric or any other responsible party.



12                          I haven't heard that kind of discussion



13            here.



14                          The Record of Decision is going  to be



15            before a District Court at any future time when



16            General Electric defends against this action by EPA



17            for recovery of remedial costs under, I think  it is



16            104 of the Act, the CERCLA Act.   But the Superfund



19            reauthorization act provided in a detailed discussion



20            of what this Record of Decision would be used  for,



21            and I'm not confident that the Record of Decision has



22            been fully evaluated or I should say covered,  it



23            covered everything that it should.



24                          For example, I read very briefly that



25            there was some question whether or not there was
-------
                                                  97



contamination.  You in your own report state that, on



Page 3, "After removing soil which contained



petroleum hydrocarbons and placing an asphalt cap



over the parking lot,  David Pascale received an



approval of his ECRA 'negative declaration' by



NJDEP."



              Now, you mentioned that you're going to



do an investigation which will be a subsurface



investigation after you do the demolition.  But why



is it that you're not  doing that at this point to see



whether or not there's going to be any impact



immediately on the groundwater aquifer or whatever is



involved in groundwater in Hoboken.



              And that's where I come in because as  a



resident, even though  I'm on 215 Bloomfield Street,



the code of convection or the flow through the



pattern of Hoboken could impact me as well as other



locations in the area.



              So I'm concerned that that kind of



evaluation and feasibility study was not included.



And it affects also the people who are the residents



of this building because if in fact there were



petroleum hydrocarbons, how can you rule out



carcinogens that are in petroleum as a possible



source of injury and danger to those residents also?
-------
                                                   98

              No question in my mind the building

should be torn down and the n,ercury contamination

removed and hopefully properly disposed of at an

acceptable landfill site.  I'd like to see where the

EPA is going to propose a Record of Decision of the

documents of where this contamination was found, the

levels it was found out, whether or not it was a

particular mercury mixture,  so you might be able to

identify it w:th the process of the making of lamps

at the site that was owned by General Electric for a
                                                • v
number of years.  Nobody has pointed out to me that

the tool and die company there would have generated

in its process  a mercury that would have been

contaminating the site.  The most likely,  given the

standard classification of General Electric's

facility and the process that was involved, I

understood that that was a very good probability that

that might have been the potentially responsible

party.  But I haven't any proof chat that's the case,

so I wouldn't make that statement.  However, that

should be part of the Record of Decision and an

explanation of how you're targeting individual

potentially responsible parties.  Because this Record

of Decision is going to be before a District Court at

some future time when a decision is made, as I
-------
                                                  99

understand, as to what is the proper cleanup, whether

that met the National Contingency Plan and who is

responsible.  So I think the Record of Decision not

only goes to remediation but it also goes to seeking

to hold liable those potentially responsible parties.

              And I didn't hear much of a discussion

about that tonight.  And correct me if I'm wrong,

that that Record of Decision does not include that

and whether or not maybe you were planning to have a

further hearing on that aspect of the matter.

              Also, I don't remember hearing or

reading in what way you looked at other things other
                                                »
than mercury.  I know you said, in most of the

discussion that I heard from about 7:15,  it was

contamination of mercury and you did the  Risk

Assessment on mercury and you did a determination of

the location of the mercury, but have you ruled out

all other possible contamination that could have

affected these people and haven't you --  I don't see

how this is a complete evaluation of the  site --

horizontally and vertically and whether or not, you

know, you have done a full evaluation.

              But let me conclude because I really, I

hadn't prepared enough here to cover everything I

wanted to, these were just notes that I jotted down.
-------
                                                                 100

 1                          But the question  I  have  is:  did  you


 2            characterize the site completely  horizontally  and


 3            vertically for all contaminant  that could  possibly be


 4            at this site other than the one which  is the most


 5            obvious, which is the mercury?


 6                          MR. HANSEN:  The  site has been


 7            characterized in the parking lot, the  soil has been


 8            characterized under the New Jersey ECRA process for


 9            priority pollutants and petroleum hydrocarbons.


10            We've characterized in the soil in the parking lot

                                                              • «
11            and at an off-site facility for mercury-  We plan


12            during the remedial action to characterize the site


13            for all Superfund target analytes and target


14            compounds.


15                          MR. WEINSTEIN:  Some of these could be


16            carcinogens,  am I right?


17                          MR. HANSEN:  Yes, seme of them are.


18                          And we also, as I stated earlier, plan


19            to characterize the groundwater.  As you in response


20            to your statement or question that this had not been


21            a thorough investigation, we do intend to look at


22            those data in the future and if those do warrant


23            further study, we will take further study and  further


24            action.


25                          MR. WEINSTEIN: Thank you.
-------
                                                   101
              MS. SEPPI:  Thank you.
              Richard Piepszak.
              I know I messed that up, but I think it
is your handwriting, it really isn't me.
              MR. PIEPSZAK:  Richard Piepszak.  I
live on 9th and Adams.  It is about a block away.
              I came here because this is in my town,
and I'm a resident and I'm concerned.  I want to say
that my heart goes out to the people at this property
and hope that they can go with the recommendation.
                                                •,
              A couple of things that are new to me

              MS. SEPPI:  Excuse me, Richard, I'jn
sorry to interrupt, would you mind moving.  There's a
ringing in that mike.
              Thank you.
              MR. PIEPSZAK:  A couple of things were
new to me, like the terms that we were reading.  And
I really just have this one question that popped up
in my mind.  How did this much mercury accumulate in
this building?
              I think part of this report, one of the
terms was saturated.  Someone had to have brought
that much mercury into the building.  I would think
they should be the responsible party to have brought
-------
                                                                102
 1            it out.  We are not talking about parts per millions,
 2            we are talking about puddles of mercury, stuff that
 3            just is like puddles of rain, it shouldn't be there.
 4            It is liquid and it is very dangerous.  I understand
 5            it is a poison, it is a puddle of poison.
 6                          I just want to become more involved and
 7            more knowledgeable, because that's how you empower
 6            yourself to further run into these problems, and I
 9            hope that we can go with that recommendation tc the
10            EPA.
11                          MS.  SEPPI:  Thank you.
12                          John, you want to talk about the
13            quantities of mercury In the building?  That mig"ht be
14            kind of conjecture at this point.
15                          MR.  HANSEN:  Yes, I  think it would be
16            conjecture to say exactly how much mercury is in the
17            building.  But I will just redirect your attention by
18            identifying or I stated earlier on that 13 of the 16
19            units in which a small area of flooring was removed,
20            we did find puddles or droplets or globules or how
21            you want to describe it of the liquid mercury and
22            determined that the mercury is pervasive throughout
23            the site.  And we only looked at a one square meter
24            area at each of those units, so the concentrations,  I
25            will just have to say, we don't know exactly what
-------
                                                   103

we're going to find but we know we have to take the

flooring out of that building.

              MS. SEPPI:  Let me just mention again,

if anybody is really interested in looking at the

Focused Feasibility Study, there are a couple of

copies here and there are some copies in the library,

and that's really sort of an in-depth explanation,

whereas this proposed plan is more of a summary of

that feasible study.  So please feel free to go take

a look at it, make copies or take a look at one of
                                                •«
the copies up here.

              I have one more card here, Madelyn

Hoffman.

              MS. HOFFMAN:  My name is Madelyn

Hoffman.  I'm the Director of Grassroots

Environmental Organization, and I also happen to be

the New Jersey Green Party candidate for Governor,

ran with Ralph Nader as his Vice Presidential running

mate last November, but more than that I have been an

activist since 1980, because I was a resident of the

City of Newark, which isn't that far from here and

I've worked with over 150 citizens' groups statewide

on toxic chemical pollution problems.  I'm here

tonight to lend my voice in support of the former

residents of 722 Grand Street and the proposed
-------
                                                                104
 1            remediation plan and permanent relocation  of  the
 2            residents in that building.
 3                          I'm not convinced and they are  not
 4            convinced and you're not convinced that the risk
 5            could be eliminated in any other way.  The
 6            pervasiveness of the mercury in the brick and in the
 7            floors and in the air and the levels of mercury which
 8            you found to me, even if you try to remediate, your
 9            own study said so,  you wouldn't know if it could be
10            successful until after the remediation was done, and
   1                                                           • •
11            it would be criminal to put these residents or any
12            other residents in the position of living in a
13            building that they knew was once seriously and  •
14            severely contaminated.  And at this point there was
15            still a question mark about whether or not it would
16            be contaminated.  Plus the fact if this process would
17            take a long period of time and residents would have
18            to be in temporary residence until such remediation
19            was completed.
20                          It is consistent with the City of
21            Hoboken's plans for the site, and as far as I can
22            tell, as far as what you've heard from the residents,
23            it is the only solution that will bring permanent
24            peace of mind to both these residents and other
25            residents.  And it is essential that people be
-------
                                                   105
protected from the health hazards of mercury, and
whether you find other contaminants at the site or
carcinogens at the site, that just would be icing on
the cake, because the threat, I suppose, by the
mercury now is, as you have determined, a serious
enough risk to remove people from that situation
permanently.
              One concern I have as someone who has
worked with citizens' groups around the state and
watched cleanups occur, I know you have mentioned it
                                                •«
in some of your reports, but I would urge you to make
sure that in the plans for remediation you are
certain that you're protecting the surrounding  .
community from dust,  from vapors,  from fugitive
emissions and the like.  Of course,  doing this has a
potential of releasing mercury in the environment.
              I saw you had plans to make sure that
didn't happen, and I  would urge you to abide by those
plans and, you know,  error on the side of safety and
caution, go overboard to make sure the surrounding
community is protected.
              That was what I had prepared to say and
I wasn't going to get into any other issues tonight,
but I'm compelled to make some kind of response to
what I heard the representative from General Electric
-------
                                                                 106
 1            say, just in a general way of who's  responsible for
 2            contamination and who's responsible  for the situation
 3            that the former residents find themselves  in and who
 4            should pay for it.
 5                          If the operation of  that  facility was
 6            so clean and so safe as contended, why  is  that
 7            building saturated with mercury from  top to bottom?
 6            Why is the mercury in the bricks,  in  the floors, in
 9            the air?
10                          The statements and the  reality are.
11            totally inconsistent.  And what I'd like to say here
12            again in a general way, because we see  time and time
13            again for leaking underground storage tanks and*
14            contaminated wells, Instead of the people who are
15            only leaking underground storage tanks  say  it was our
16            underground storage tank that contaminated,  they'd
17            like to say well, it is the fertilizer  you  used or it
18            must have been the septic tank cleaners  you used.
19                          It is always easier to  blame  the
20            victim, and in this case, I would say as strongly as
21            I possibly can, particularly after sitting  here and
22            listening to resident after resident  tell  their story
23            about what happened to them over the  last  number of
24            years, in this case, the victim, those  affected by
25            contamination should be congratulated,  not  blamed,
-------
                                                   107
they should be congratulated for dealing logically,
carefully and cautiously with the situation they
found.   They should be congratulated for having the
courage to face what they found.
              When you first find out about something
like this, the first response is, it can't be, it
couldn't be, it never would happen to me.  But they
had the courage to face what they found, despite the
consequences it would have on their lives.  They had
the courage to push fcr real solutions, despite the
consequences that would have on their lives.  They've
had the courage to find ways to prevent this from
happening to somebody else, by supporting legislation
that would make it impossible for this to happen
again.
              Put all that together, and put that
together with the partnership they forged with the
EPA, and we have a very rare situation in the State
of New Jersey and across the country where the EPA
and residents both agree on the nature of the hazard,
the seriousness of the hazard,  and on the proposed
remedy-  The information presented by the EPA today
is startling and leaves no doubt that there is no
remediation method other than demolition that will
guarantee the safety of that building and that will
-------
                                                  108


guarantee the safety of the former  residents  and win


give everyone in this community, people who once


lived in that building and people who  live around it,


the peace of mind they need to go on with their


lives.


              I urge you to move forward as rapidly


as possible with this remediation strategy.


              Thank you.


              MS. SEPPI:  That's all the cards I have


from people who asked to make a statement.
                                                •«

              If there's anybody left in the audience


who would like to ask a question and make a


statement, please come forward.


              MR. MACARRULLA:   My name Is Manuel


Macarrulld.


              The way of expressing my support for


the former residents of 722 Grand Street, I would


like to just make a brief statement concerning the GE


representative's contention that the building would


be considered safe to operate industrially in


allowing for much higher levels of contamination than


for residential use.


              Accepting that for the purpose of this


statement, that is, to take General Electric's word


for that, as a true fact, you know, when you think
-------
                                                                109

 1            about the fact that the former residents have

 2            exhibited serious  symptoms of mercury contamination

 3            at  much lower levels,  well,  all I can say about that

 4            is  that the Environmental  Protection Agency and all

 5            the citizens of Hoboken need to think about that

 6            very,  very carefully.   We  can't be swayed by how much

 7            the letter of the  law  may  seem to let General

 8            Electric off the hook.   There's a serious

 9            contamination here,  it is  medically verifiable,  and I

10            say again,  people  just need  to think very carefully

11            about that.   That's all.

12                          MS.  SEPPI:   Thank you.

13                          Anybody  else have a question or

14            statement?

15                          MR.  KEOGH:   Henry Keogh.   I'm a parent

16            of  a set of residents,  my  son and my daughter-in-law
                 V
17            and my grandson lived  there,  and I have  two things.

18                          First of all,  it seemed the wise thing

19            to  me to demolish  the  building,  but the  second thing,

20            I would like to know what  happens to the financial

21            liability which these  tenants have?  They all have

22            mortgages.  If they were relocated, would that be

23            covered or -- what happens for their liability?

24                          MS.  SEPPI:   That's probably a question

25            that will come later on in this process.  Right now
-------
                                                                 110
 1            we have tc  finish up this  comment  period,  take these
 2            comments under review, write  a  Record  of  Decision,
 3            which will  be the final decision.
 4                          MR. KEOGH:   Uh-nuh.
 5                          MS. SEPPI:   We  still have to get Grand
 6            Street permanently listed  as  a  Superfund  site  on the
 7            National Priorities List.
 6                          Once we do that,  we can  start
 9            addressing  the relocation  issues that  will arise.
10            You know, there are federal regulations that we use
                                                              »•
11            for relocations.  I don't want  to put  you  off, but I
12            would just  think that that question, and  I know it is
13            very important to the residents, is just a little bit
14            premature.  There «re a couple  of other steps  in the
15            process that we have to get through first.
16                          MR. KEOGH:  Okay.  Thank you.
17                          MS. SEPPI:  Any other questions?
18                          Yes.
19                          MS. CHEN:  Shun-Yi Chen, and one of the
20            former member of the Grand Street Artists, I used to
21            live in 5E.  I have a husband first to raise the
22            mercury present, and we believe it was not safe to
23            live in, and we welcome EPA decision to relocate and
24            demolition  of the building.   However,  because  of the
25            problem, you know, the mercury  problem, we cannot
-------
                                                  Ill
close our property and we will not be eligible for
the permanent relocation program.  So I especially
hope EPA and former residents of Grand Street
Artists/ will embrace us as our family and let us be
part of the permanent relocation package.
              Thank you very much.
              MS. SEPPI:  Thank you.
              Any other questions?
              Okay.  If not, then in closing just a
couple of things I'd like to remind you of.   Ple'ase,
if you have written comments, don't forget to get
them into John by close of business August 7th.  And
also, the other supporting documentation is  available
in the library.  And again, we'll be taking  these
comments under consideration in reviewing them before
we write our final Record of Decision.
              In the meantime, if you have any
questions please feel free to contact us at  any time.
              Thank you very much for coming tonight
and putting up with the heat and the air
conditioning, I mean the lack of air conditioning.
It wasn't as bad as we thought it was going  to be.
              Thank you again.
              MR. HANSEN:  I wanted to mention that
these extra copies of the Feasibility Study and Risk
-------
                                                                112
 1            Assessment that I brought are highly valuable
 2            commodities.  Anyone who comes down, first  come,
 3            first served basis is welcome to them.
 4                          Thanks a lot for coming.
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
                                                   113
                C E R T I FICATION
               I, KIM 0. FURBACHER,

a Certified Shorthand Reporter, License No. XI01042,

Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public of

the State of New Jersey, certify that the foregoing

is a true and accurate transcript of my stenographic

notes.
A Notary Public of New Jersey
My Commission Expires:
7/99
-------
                                APPENDIX E

                           WRITTEN COMMENTS

 EPA received these written comments during the public comment period.  These have been
summarized in Sections 4.0 and 5.0 of the Responsiveness Summary. EPA's responses to the
              written comments are also included in Sections 4.0 and 5.0
-------
July 12.1907


This is my Draft response to epa about proposed plan for 722 Grand St.

                                                    Matthew Schtey
 I am very pleased that the process is moving along. I am very pleased that the E.P.A.
has recommended that my family be permanently relocated.
  i arvi mv family are trying to rebuild our lives from crushed dreams.  The first year of
our dislocation all we iiteii io uu t.^o hokl c>f' We r.e/x-r ufi^^ktio ii.au> ol oa;
belongings until we had been living in our temporary quarter for ove< a yc^r. T^crc
just seemed to be no point. That was the problem there didn't seem to be a point to
many things. I hd an overwhelming feeling of the uselessness of many activities.
 I feel like I live in limbo. A place that where many of the things I took for granted are
lost. My sense of control over my destiny, the sense of hope I could give to my family.
The senses that my hard work would make a difference in my life . This may all be an
Illusion anyway but it is an necessary illusion to have a happy and satisfying life.
These were taken away. I have struggled mightily with these feeling . I realize they are
destructive to my well being I feel as if I am doing better and as the process moves
along that there is reason for hope but still I have trouble with everyday things. For
some reason  I am afraid or avoid  opening the mail.  I don't like to answer the phone.  I
expect bad news at any moment.  I know these are silly self-indulgent phobias  but it is
how I feel. Then sometimes I feel hopeful. Reading the report that I will be
permanently relocated has given me hope that there is a way out of my situation. But I
?m ater, afraid i am afraid to hope so much is unknown.
 Vy *??". r.c * ~'r»s? ps^nmftnt ma
-------
Corinne Mulrenan
600 Hudson Street, Apt. ID
Hoboken, NJ 07030

John Hansen
Remedial Project Manager
US Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866

July 16, 1997

Dear John:

First off, I'd like to thank the E.P.A. for "being there" during the most tragic event of my life ... I
don't dare imagine what the experience would be like without their assistance, their kindness and
compassion, and their willingness to talk, share information and answer all of my questions.

The individuals who  built 722  GRAND STREET had all started creating it in their imaginations
years before the  Partnership was  bom.  We're the  type of  people who consider our homes
sanctuaries where we are able to pursue our  personal, professional and artistic goals ... a space
that will grow with us ...  meet  our needs perhaps for the rest of our lives. (Michael and I are not
fond  of moving,  but this past year, we have moved three times...it really sucks the life out  of
you!)

Michael (Solter) and  I wanted  to create the ideal home in  which we could have enough room to
raise our family, have real studio space so I could develop my business and  be in Hoboken, a city
we have collectively  lived in for forty years...we like it here a lot ... Actually realizing that goal
was at that  point, the most fulfilling achievement of my life and I'm certain  Michael would agree
To lose it so abruptly was  overwhelming, devastating and surreal ... It  is truly bizarre to feel  all
the control you have  over your life quickly slip away.

We had to delay pregnancy for six months so that the mercury would leave  my body. Thankfully,
1 became pregnant last summer and Maxwell was born in March,  1997 ... now HE is the greatest
achievement of our lives.  At nearly 38 years old I cannot help but wonder if we will decide  to
have another child, -  a sister or brother for Max ...the proverbial clock is ticking.  When Michael
and I discuss this  we both agree that we could not handle the responsibility of a second  child if
this situation is not  resolved  and  we must  continue to live  in temporary relocation with our
futures in limbo.   This is  an  ongoing stressful ordeal that seems to require large amounts  of
energy, just as children do  ... we're not sure we  have enough of what it will  take.

I am asking the E.P.A. to make one of the most important decisions of MY life...Please follow
through with your recommendation   to  remove the contaminated building and permanently
relocate my family and my neighbors as quickly as possible.  Time is a precious commodity that
-------
cannot be replaced ..This project and it's tragic aftermath has already cost Michael and I nearly

five years of our lives.  Our future is (literally) in your hands.
Sincerdy,
           ^
Connne Mulrenan

Former resident of 722/Grand Street, Ufiit 3C
-------
Michael Solter
600 Huson Street, Apt. ID
Hoboken. NJ 07030

John Hansen
Remedial Project Manager
US Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866

July 13,1997

Dear John:

First and foremost, I want to thank the EPA for being there to provide temporary shelter in our
time of desperate need.  Without the temporary relocation assistance, we would have been out on
the street. Nonetheless, we are not in the homes that we built to live the rest of our lives.  Now,
as much as I would like to go  back, it has been demostrated to me that this building can not be
made safe for our family. I therefore strongly urge the US EPA to adopt their recommendation to
permanently relocate the former residents of 722 Grand Street.

I never knew what depression really meant until the loss of our homes became a reality. This has
triggered feelings in me that I didn't know were possible.  In the initial weeks of the crisis time. I
couldn't  sleep, I couldn't eat, I hardly could work.  Since then, it gotten less severe,  but is still
there.  One aspect is the uncertainty of our  future health.  But really the main contributor is
uncertainty over our future living/working situation.

From  the time we first got involved with the project in Feb.,  1993, until we closed on our
mortgage in 1995, we lived under the  specter of not being able  to  complete the project.  This
uncertainty caused stress in us because  it was such a risky proposition from the beginning   Two
years may not  sound like a lot of time, but it is a long time to have to worry about the same thing
- getting the building done and closing on a mortgage to finance it. However, we knew that the
payoff was huge and that made the stress manageable.  We chose the path that we took and I
could live with H. We  did not  choose to be evacuated from our homes. I am having a very hard
time with the fact that the struggle is not over and that it may be years before we can recreate an
environment similar to what we had, if we can do it at all.  That is depressing.

In addition, one of the  most depressing aspect of our situation is when people ask if we are back
in the building. Most people don't understand that  the building is beyond cleaning and we will not
be going back. They don't realize it, and it pours salt on the wound every time.  Before we moved
in to 722 Grand Street, people would ask us all the time "so, aren't you in there, yet?!!"  And we
would have to say, "no, maybe a few more months...." After we moved in, it was such a pleasure
to be able to say, "yes!, we're there,  would you like to come see it!" Now, we are saying, "no,
we're never going back and we have no idea how long it will take before we to do it again."  That
is VERY depressing - not knowing if we will get the  funds to re-build, and not knowing how long
-------
it may take to get the money. This is a very real concern, because our building was unique in the
town of Hoboken. It was the only approved live/work condominiums available and some of the
largest.  You simply can not buy places like these, you have to create them.

Please look at the photographs included with this letter.  What you see is a glimpse of what our
space looked like before and what we accomplished.  Please review the list of attributes (attached)
of the buildiag in general and of our unit specifically. Clearly you can see we designed and built
our space to accomodate our specific needs and to last for the long haul. Everything was done
with the thought of living there the rest of our lives.

Although we will never get back all of the time an sweat we put into 722 Grand Street, we do
have  hope  that  we will be  able to build a living/working situation again that will have  enough
room to raise a  family -  in Hoboken. The proposed plan by the EPA is perhaps the first step
towards that end. This can not happen soon enough.  I urge the EPA adopt the proposed plan to
permanently relocate the former residents of 722 Grand Street as quickly as humanly possible.
Sincerely,
Michael So her
Former resident of unit# 3C, 722 Grand Street, Hoboken, NJ
-------
               722 Grand Street, Hoboken, NJ

           Attributes of the  Building as a Whole

These are attributes of the property as a whole that made it worth spending years of our lives
to make it a reality.
D Zoned for live/work use
  » special zoning provisions and variances  for fire protection and ventilation in studio spaces
D Strategic location
  * minutes to NYC by car, bus, train, or ferry.
  * 1  block from bus stop, supermarket, and Columbus Park
  * several restaurants within a 5 block radius
  * easy access to train lines and airport
D Community
  * close friendships with many neighbors
  * artists within the building and within the city
  * business and social contacts within easy walking distance
  * child care cooperative
D Ability to design unit to individual specifications
D 30 Parking spaces on site
D High ceilings, 12 feet on lower floors, 18+ feet on top floor
D Large floor space on one level
  * average 2700 sq. ft. per unit - on one level
  * duplexes on top floors, up to 3500 sq. ft.
  * wide, open floor plan - flexibility of design of each unit
D Large wall areas • lots of space to work with and to display large art peices
D Large and plentiful windows, ample natural light
0 Industrial strength wood floors, enough for heavy equipment. The joists
  measure 4" x 14" of solid hardwood.
D Large elevator 5' x 7' floor and 10 feet high.
D Large (31 x 8') steel entrance doors for each unit
  * ability to put double wide steel doors for entrances  for a small incremental cost.
D Large roof area, with panoramic view of New York City
  * perfect for common roof deck
  * Top two floors also have spectacular views
D Common Backyard area
Q Balconies and outside deck areas
D 10,000+ sq. ft common area on ground floor
  * storage
  * commercial rental space
  * child care/play area
  * gallery space
  * gathering/meeting room
                                                                      Pagel
-------
                722 Grand Street,  Hoboken, NJ

       Attributes of the Building as a Whole(Cont'd)

D state-of-the-art, high efficiency heating system
  *  dual Aeirco high efficiency boilers (back-up if one failed, more efficient in summer)
  *  hot waTer service to each unit for heat and hot water
D high capacity electric service
  *  150 or 200 amps per unit
D Full fire protection system
  *  upgraded sprinkler system
  *  smoke detectors
  *  central monitoring station
D High quality insulation between units required for
  *  sound
  *  heat


      Qualities and Attributes  of Unit 3C Specifically


Over-all design principles

D You should never feel cramped anywhere in the unit. Everything is given
  enough space (but not wasteful) to operate and maintain.
  *  Many developers put minimal space around fixtures and utilty items. This may meet code,
     but the developer doesn't care about the ease of maintenance access.  They're not going to
     be living there.  Also, reworking an a poorly designed, but already built home is like paying
     double -  and it  is expensive. We had the ability to  design for the long term,  very cost
     effectively.

  *  Some examples of features are:

     1. 3 feet or 5  feet wide doorways, even bathrooms.
     2. Large size, open rooms - areas have specific functions, but most are not cut-off by walls.
     3. Long lines  of sight - many eyesight lines go over 40 feet, some the full 60 feet length of
      the unit.

D Lighting, both  natural and man-made, matters.

  *  Sight is .the  strongest  sense that humans  have.  Therefore,  placement and intensity of
     lighting has a strong influence of mood and comfort.

  *  Some examples of features are:

                                                                       Page2
-------
    1 . Floor plan designed to have maximum natural light penetration in unit over the full day.
    2. Use of glass block in walls to allow more light through the unit.
    3. Light bulbs should not be seen directly - heavy use of recessed lighting for area lighting.
    4. Use light dimmers everywhere. This makes it easy to set lighting intensity to suit the mood
      and purpose of the moment.

D Don't skimp on quality of materials.

  *  We found that the difference between mediocre quality and good/excellent quality materials
     and  fixtures was not that much money - as long as you did your homework. This really
     saved us  money because we didn't have to buy someone else's (cheap) idea of fixtures and
     then replace them.

D Ceiling fans in every room.

  *  These help keep rooms cool in warm weather and circulate heat better in the winter. It also
     saves on  energy costs.

D Real exhaust fans to the outside - studio, kitchen, bathrooms, laundry
  room.

  *  Many units are built with exhaust fans just going into a wall or crawl space. This is not only
     destructive to the walls in the long run, it also defeats the purpose of an exhaust fan.
  *  We had proper ventilation with ducting to over the roof level.

D Telephone lines and cable jacks in every room.


               Specific Room Attributes. Unit 3C
Studio
D 450 sq.ft room
D Specifications:
   *  Separate doorway to common hallway - 5' wide doorway
   *  5' x 8' doorway to living space
      - fire rated double doors
      - decorative sliding doors
   *  Meets fire code approval for commercial space
      - 2 hour fire walls
      - Fire rated doors
   *  500 cu.  ft. per min. exhaust fan to outside
   *  Three large windows
   *  5' x 8' glass block wall to foyer area

                                                                             Page3
-------
Kitchen
D Open Concept
   * Kitchen placed in center of unit, every room in the house has easy access
   * Only one real wall in Kitchen,  the room is defined by in-laid tile flooring and a valence with
     low voltage lighting system around the ceiling perimeter of the kitchen space
D Specifications:
   » Cabinet for 36" refrigerator
   * 9' long x 4' wide island with bar sink, two levels (counter height and table height), and large
     capacity cabinets underneath.
   * 42" high top cabinets for extra storage
   * 12' long angled counter top, with stove, double sink, and 5' peninsula
   * Peninsula has second level that is bar height and borders on living room area.
   * Built-in microwave/convection oven with real exhaust fan to the outside
   * High quality decorative tile  on back splash and in-laid tile (13" tiles) floor area underneath
     kitchen area.
   * Under cabinet light
   * Hanging lights, with dimmer control on wall, above  island
   * Low voltage seagull lighting in ceiling valence around kitchen perimeter
   « Built-in Ironing Board
Master Bath
D 7'xlO' large room
D Specifications
   * Two Medicine cabinets - large capacity
   * 4' wide vantity with tile backsplash
   * 3' x 5' shower, with two shower heads and controls, and sliding glass doors
   * Tiled floor and walls. (5' high on walls)
   * Heat lamp and shower light in ceiling
   * Two wall sconces
   » Exhaust fan to outside
   * Alcove in wall for display or storage
   * room for storage cabinet

Childrens '/Guest Bath
D 6' x 9'  large room
D Designed for wheelchair access
D Specifications
   * Large capacity medicine cabinet
   » Wheelchair accessable sink
   * Tub/shower with enough room for diasabled access shower
   * Tiled floor
   * Shower light  in ceiling
   * Ceiling light and light over sink

                                                                                  Page4
-------
  » Exhaust fan to outside
Laundry/Utility Room
07'xll'Room
D 2" poured concrete slab floor with slope to floor drain
D Specifications!
  * 30 gal. hot water tank (heat exchange from hot water source)
  * Extra large capacity washer and dryer, side by side
  * industrial rubber tile floor
  * large, deep sink
  * Central vacuum system unit
  * exhaust fan to outside
  * telecommunications connection panel
            - Telephone and TV

Master Bedroom
D Large floor space -19' x 19'
D Specifications:
   *  His/Hers closets with
      -large capacity
      -custom interiors
      -birchwood exterior - a "wall of wood"
      -built-in entertainment center
   4  Alcove above bed for art display
   *  glass block walls between BR and kitchen., and BRTand master bath
   *  Pedistal sink in bedroom, just out side master bath
   *  Master bath door in BR
   *  two large windows and door to outside

 Childrens' Bedroom
 D 13'x 21 "Room
 D Specifications:
   *  2 large windows
   *  One full wall ia painted brick
   *  Custom color stained floor
                                                                             PageS
-------
-------
«^
-------
      IW.
band's
-------
-------
-------
SBD
-------
                Statement of the General Electric Company
                     Public Hearing for Proposed Plan
                  Grand Street Artists Site, Hoboken, NJ
                              July 16,1997
          Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the General

Electric Company on the proposed remedy for the Grand Street Artists

Partnership property. My name is Jane Gardner. I am Manager and Counsel for

^P'~ Environmental Remediation Program.

          I have been involved with this situation since GE was first notified by

the residents in early January, 1996. For those of you who don't remember what

was going on at that time, the Northeast was being hit with one of the worst

blizzards in history. The government was virtually shut down with budget

problems. We saw on TV a report that 17 families were being evicted from their

homes due to mercury contamination. Shortly thereafter, we received a letter

from the residents' lawyers asking for assistance from GE. We met throughout

trie weenena ai Cac heatiauariers and Came UD witii a ylan to provide money,

relocation assistance, and medical assistance to the residents for emergency

assistance. We stepped forward and made that offer without any opportunity to

investigate the facts.

          Since then, we have learned a great deal about the facts that bring us

here tonight We have asked ourselves several key questions.  How did these

people buy a factory to live in?  How did they get to stay? How did EPA pick the

remedv that will destroy a functional building, pay back the investors double the

ill-advised investments they put into a building, knowing of the mercury
-------
problems, ignoring their consultants, and hiding that fact from all who could have




helped them prevent the situation which they created? The answers are startling.



           They bought a factory. This was an almost 100 year old factory that



had been used properly for a factory almost its entire life. GE operated it as a




factory, sold it as a factory, and then it was sold and sold again as a factory.



During GE's time, it was a clean factory, and by the accounts of neutral observers



and its own employees, it was operated safely and cleanly. Even by modern



standards, the factory meets the air standards for mercury that the federal



government has established as safe for industrial use. It should never have



become a residence, and just a modicum of due care at any point along the way



by the seller, David Pascale, or the buyers, would have prevented all the



expenses that EPA is proposing today. Tearing down a factory that is safe for




use as a factory today is not an appropriate use of the Superfund.  Paying



relocation expenses to reimburse negligent investment risks are noian



appropriate use of the Superfund.



           The laws of the State of New Jersey were broken. The Seller, David




Pascale, didn't disclose the mercury contamination or historic use of the



building,  even though he knew of the prior mercury operations  because his



father, a long time employee of the early years of mercury operations, had told



him so, and had even showed him one of the old Cooper Hewitt mercury vapor




lamps saved as a family rr\enwnto-  The State has revoked David's ECRA



approval  to transfer the property, on the grounds that he did  not "accurately
-------
depict the full type, extent, and magnitude of the contamination." There is an



ongoing state criminal investigation of David Pascale's ECRA application.



          The original Partners had years of experience in building



renovations, and ran numerous other redevelopment projects. They could have



prevented all of the current situation by doing just a basic environmental



inspection of tne factory. According to their consultant, he was not allowed 1&



inspect the building above the basement level. As EPA itself has recognized,



when someone buys non-residential property for residential use, they have a



heightened duty of due care in investigating the appropriateness of that property



for the converted use. The buyers here were told the same thing in writing by



their own environmental consultant and were told that the NJDEP was not



scrutinizing the case as a sale for conversion to residences. The buyers could



have notified the government when they first found mercury in 1993, then again



in 1934, Lten again, in 1995, and all throughout that year.  They could hav«



rescinded the contract and extricated themselves. They could have followed



their consultants' advice and notified the authorities in early 1995, and not



encouraged further purchases of units.  They could have not voted to conceal the



information from authorities as late as November of 1995. Their conduct was



unreasonable and neither GE nor any other taxpayer should be asked to bail



them out



           GE objects to the proposed remedy as scientifically unsound,



inconsistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP), and an irresponsible,



politically motivated waste of taxpayer money. While GE has been unable to
-------
review all the documents that indicate EPA's deliberations on this proposed




remedy, since EPA has shrouded them in secrecy, the documents which EPA has



released show that EPA has ignored the criteria upon which it is obligated to




base a remedy selection decision, has "stretched the law" for the residents in the




words of the former residents themselves, and has turned Superfund on its head



in order to accommodate'Uose v*ho created the very problanvc EPA now wants to




fix.



           EPA's remedy decision is not based on sound science. To the




contrary, it is based on arbitrary numbers designed to reach a pre-ordained



result  EPA ignores the federal standards that its sister agencies have set for



workplace exposure. Two government agencies have set two different exposure



numbers for worker exposure to mercury.  The Occupational Safety and Health



Agency (OSHA) has set a standard of 100 ug/m3; the National Institute for the




Occupational Safety ami Health (NIOSK) has set a «Canciard; of 50' A private.



group, the American Council of Governmental Industrial Hygenists (ACGIH),



recommends a standard of 25.  Without citing any appropriate or relevant basis,




EPA here says 0.44, which is 56x times lower than the lowest level the U.S.



Government says is safe for workers who work with mercury every day. EPA



picked this number by taking the lowest of the three published standards, the




only one not set by the government itself, and then arbitrarily cut it by 90%. It




then took the remaining 10% of the lowest standard,  and cut it arbitrarily 67%,



and finally took that number and cut it almost another 47%, by  assuming that
-------
taeh worktr to breathing in double the amount of air for 8 hours a day than you



and I breathe. If a calculation* are unaupportable and bad sci«nc«.



           Aa a 123-year-old company founded by Thomas Edison, GE has



considerable expertise in safely operating mercury lighting factories GE



believes that the building can and should be returned to productive use as a



commercial or inousuiai bunair^. it can be readily and safety retitedleted to



industrial use, consistent with the Administration's long standing support of



Brownfields redevelopment Since the building can be safely re-utilized, EPA



exceeds its authority, by demolishing a safe factory.  GE has offered, numerous



times, to remediate the factory to ensure safe levels for future industrial use.  We



continue to stand by that offer.



           We ask EPA to reconsider its decision to demolish a building that



can be readily returned to safe and beneficial use. GE will abide by its



ehvlrcnmflnfeal ya&pansiktfity im4&*"tKe law, however, asktKfi' EPA held)



accountable those who are responsible for the imprudent conversion of this



factory in determining who should pay if the proposed remedy goes forward.  GE



proposes that EPA submit this proposed plan to the National Remedy Review



Board or a panel of independent experts to review the science of this decision.



We are not afraid of a fair or impartial process. We ask EPA to administer the



 Superfund program, as rt to mandated to do by Congress, in a fair, scientifically



 sound, and impartial way.



           Thank you.
-------
                      HUDSON COUNTY,  NEW JERSEY

                            BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS
                                ADMINISTRATION ANNEX
                       5«7PAVONIAAVENUE-JCRSEYCITY. N.J. OT3O6

                                    2O1-795-€OOt
                                  FAX - 201-217-0404
                                       August 18, 1997
Mr. John Hansen, Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway — 19th Floor
New York, New York 10007-1866

Dear Mr. Hansen:

       At their Thursday, August 14 regularly scheduled meeting, the Hudson County Board of
Chosen Freeholders heard the prepared statement of Curtis Crystal, who formally represented the
Grand Street Artists Partnership of Hobo ken.

       The Freeholder Board adopted Resolution #23 unanimously by those present, which gives
support to the stand of the Grand Street Artists Partnership and urges the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to choose their own recommendation: Alternative 5, Demolition and
Permanent Relocation of All Residents.

       A copy, with raised Freeholder seal, is enclosed for your formal records.
                                       Sincerely,
Mauri
Chairpe:
                                              Tson
Enclosure
c:  Stephen Keough, for the Grand Street Artists Partnership
-------
 No.  404-S-1997
BOARD OF  CHOSEN  FREEHOLDERS
         COUNTY OF HUDSON

       RESOLUTION

                    On Motion of Freeholder  Board as a
                     Seconded  by Freeholder	
                        RESOLUTION REQUESTING SWIFT ACTION
             ON THE PART OF THE ILS. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                    IN THE MATTER OF 722 GRAND STREET. HOBOKEN
        WHEREAS, in December, 1995, the Ciry of Hoboken learned of mercury contamination
  costing on the premise of 722 Grand Street, a residential building housing 17 families; and

        WHEREAS, the families were evacuated from the premises in early January, 1996; and

        WHEREAS, due former residents of 722 Grand Street have had to endure multiple severe
  hardships attributable to their misfortune for die past 18 monnhs, including exposure to
  mercury, temporary housing, emotional distress, financial constraint! and uncertainly about die
  future; and

        WHEREAS, die United Stares Environmental Protection Agency has jurisdiction over this
  matter and is conducting a focused study to determine what course of arn'rm should be taken
  wiih regard to the contaminated site; and

        WHEREAS, die former residents of 722 Grand Street have manifested die desire for swift
  action from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and

        WHEREAS, die site of 722 Grand Street is, and shall continue to be, viewed negatively
  by die public because of us mercury contamination,

        NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by die Board of Chosen Freeholders of die County
  of Hudson, that:

        1. This  Board, *l™^ with County Executive Robert C Janiszewski, rafo upon die U.S-
  Environmental Protection Agency to expediendy resolve die issue of permanent relocation of all
  Tfn-xnn jnd to »"*n for die demolition ox removal of 722 Grand Street, Hoboken and die
  environmental restoration of its land.

        2. This  Board, along widi County Executive Robert C Janiszewski, recognizes die hard
  work, along with die extreme personal hardship, diat each of die 17 faTnilir; has experienced,
  and extends iis  empathy for die loss of personal property, time, construction effort and
  monetary contribution, as weU as die addition of much aggravation and uncertainty in ther
  daily lives.
         3. This resolution *fc>n "^ effect immediately.
    It is hereby  certified that at a regular meeting of the Board  of Freeholders  of die
County of Hudson  held on die/y# day old**^-**"  A.0.1997. the foregoing
resolution  was adopted  with  ~f members voting in the affirmative and  x;  in die
negative.

-------
                         lanital  States £cnatt
                             WASHINGTON, DC 20510-3002
                                                                              •UOOIT
                                                  July 16, 1997
                                                                                  »•

Ms. Jeanne Fox
Regional Administrator
US Environmental Protection Agency-Region II
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866

Dear Jeanne,

       I want to express my strong support for EPA's proposed plan for the demolition of the
Grand Street Mercury Site in Hoboken.

       As you know, I have been working with the residents of this site since they first found
out they were being forced to evacuate their homes. I have followed the details of this
situation closely and believe that my constituents have been through a nightmare that no one
should ever have to experience.

       That's why I am pleased that your proposed plan takes an important step in allowing
the residents to move forward with their lives. I know that EPA has proposed the Grand Street
site for inclusion on the Superfund National Priorities List and I am confident that you
understand the importance of making a decision on this as quickly as possible.  If this site is
listed, the residents will be able to focus on permanent relocation. As you know, they arc most
anxious to begin that process so that they can rebuild their lives and plan for their futures.

       I'd also like to commend you and your agency for the speed  and sensitivity with which
you have handled this environmental disaster. Although the residents were obviously
extremely upset about their situation, my office heard over and over again about how helpful
and supportive EPA has been.

        I have heard from many of the residents that without the Superfund program, they
might have been out on the streets.  Thankfully, the Superfund Removal Program has covered
the costs of their relocation and new rents. Many of the former residents would have had
nowhere to turn without this help.

        The Grand Street Site story is an important one that I will continue to tell to Congress
as we move through the Superfund reauthorization process this year.  This critical program is
 DC 20510-3002
Ost NcwtM CES1H '4-n, F,.OO«
ME«un NJ 07107-5257
20': M5-M30
208 «V-T 7*
S..-?S'»- '
••
                                       ON RECYCLED
-------
                                        -2-

laotjust about cleaning up abandoned, forgotten toxic waste sites in the middle of nowhere. It is
also about protecting the health, safety and sanity of Americans who find themselves in the
middle of an environmental nightmare they never anticipated.

     I look forward to working closely with you on the clean up of this site and on the
relocation of the former residents.

                                                 Sincerely,
-------
ROB€«T G TORRICEUJ
                                    IdnitoJ &tatu &cnatc
                                        WASHINGTON. DC 20610-3003
                                              July 16, 1997
         Mr. John Hansen,
         Remedial Project Manager USEPA-Region II
         Emergency and Remedial Response Division
         290 Broadway 19* Floor
         New York, New York 10007-1866

         Dear Mr. Hansen,

                I am writing to offer my support on behalf of the residents of 722 Grand Street Hoboken,
         New Jersey and the proposed remediation plan for the site. I would urge that you pursue all
         viable options, so that this matter is resolved quickly and effectively. It is imperative that the
         needs of the residents of this building remain first and foremost.

                I concur with your agency's recommendation that the site be placed on the Superfund
         National Priorities List as an emergency site  and I will work to ensure  that  this recommendation
         is implemented. 1 would also urge the Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA), formally adopt
         the proposed plan. Clearly the residents cannot return to the site, it must be demolished and
         appropriately disposed of.

                I must commend the EPA for the cooperation and willingness that it has demonstrated in
         working with the residents of the building and local government to ensure that the best interests
         of the residents and the  community are protected. The on-going communication and support has
         been encouraging. It is imperative that this support continue as the permanent relocation plan
         proceeds.  It is essential that the owners secure a fair settlement and remuneration for their losses.
         The proposed plan appears to be the most protective of human health and the environment and
         will ensure that this devastating problem is finally resolved.

                I will  work to support your efforts and will continue to monitor the status of the clean-up.
         I am hopeful  that this most unfortunate situation will be resolved quickly and effectively.
                                                               ROBERT G. TORR1CELLI
                                                               United States Senator
                                              •o.s'E ^ C "^ ME ;••:_£z p*Bff
-------
                     StHlcmeni of the Hon. Robert Mrnrndc?
                on thr Proposed Plan for 722 GrtinU Sireti, lloboken

      I here are a tew events which define the essence of the law and illustrate the
nature of our social compact  We arc present here ui Hobokcn at such an event.
Our primary concern is the relocation of the prior residents of this building and the
plan for remediation of the building and soil on Grand Street.  Bui looming behind
tins human tragedv are powerful forces seeking to permanently alter the nature of
the Superfunri Jaw  These forces are plotting to destroy the very fabric of protection
tor our citizens and greatly weaken the safeguards against contamination each one
of us has come to expecl. This week there will be attempts in Congress to cut $650
million and mpplr the Supertlmd program.

      Supeirund has been under severe criticism from special interests who seek to
shift the cost of cheinjcal contamination from those who have profited Irom
pollution to the general taxpayer or in this case even the victims. The criticisms of
the Superfund program include:  cleanups take  too long, cost too much, retjune loo
much clean up, charges of speculative science and liability that is too slnct.

      722 Grand Street is the reason for Supertund   Lt is a talc of a creeping
insidious tenor that grew to horrid proportions. For several months residents did
notrfcnow whattt^y wfire&cing. Local officials 
-------
PILE  No. 838 07/15  '97 16:3*3 ID'  ^4£€Z DC
      innocent victims. They did nothuig to knowingly place themselves in harm's way.
       I here was a time bomb waiting in their home. It is a poison that we have knou
      about since antiquity .  It has invaded their bodies and we know who put it there
      Who should make this nght';  They have no homes  Their lives' investments were
      permanently taken from them.  What are ihe long terra effects of this on our fellow
      citizens1
                     £0flsmuem$ made whole.  I want then liveiTfitume^ to normal.
      1 want the Ai&hknaire eradeti Jot foem and j waiUjustK&jur The residern^-tl
      and ihcir environment  Thank you Tor giving me the opportunity to present" my
      views.
-------
                                   NKW JBHSBT SBXATB

                                                                             SENATE COMMITTEES
                                                                          BUDOCT JJTD Arrmonunat
IKABD F. Kawirr, JR.                                                    Jonrr Btmotr OVSUIOBT
  ICMATOK. 33f» 0«T*CT                                                       STAT1
   Hrosow COUWTT                                                          A*r FotAjrcLu. IxrnTtmowi
 235 HuDSOir ST»»T
 HoBoiDt, HJ orooo
    TB_K»*»>-««                                              July 16, 1997
   Mr. John Hansen
   Remedial Project Manager
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
   290 Broadway, 19th Floor
   New York, NY 10007-1866

   Dear Mr. Hansen:

         I am writing in support of the Proposed Plan that describes the alternatives which the U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency has recommended for the Grand Street Mercury Site in Hoboken, New
   Jersey. As the state representative for the sixteen former resident families of 722 Grand Street, I believe
   that the recommended course of action on this property should be the permanent relocation of the
   residents and the complete demolition of the building.

         The Grand Street Artists Partnership pooled their resources and purchased this building in
   August 1993. They followed all the proper procedures to ensure this former industrial site  was safe for
   residential use and after receiving the required permits they began to move in and renovate their
   individual units for living/work space. During this renovation period, mercury contamination was found
   throughout the building and the Hoboken Health Department took the unusual action of ordering the
   families to vacate the premises. The Health Department tested the residents for mercury and many were
   found to have elevated levels of mercury in their system.

          It has been over a year and a half that  the families have been living in temporary housing and
   with the uncertainty of what the future holds for them. Some  of their personal belongings remain in the
   sealed building while others are.,in storage. They have been living with the physical effects of exposure
   to mercury, severe emotional distress and financial constraints.  The Grand Street Artists have suffered a
   great deal during the last two years. Having closure and the need to move on with their lives is important
   for them.

          After reviewing your Proposed Plan for the Grand Street Mercury Site and meeting with the
   residents of 722 Grand Street, I believe that the safest long-term remedy for the site should be permanent
   relocation of the former residents, acquisition of the property  by the USEPA and demolition of the
   property while ensuring that they environmentally restore the land.  It is in the best interest of the
   community to follow this course of action and important that  the USEPA not change the preferred course
   of action.
                                                                    Yf ry truly yours,
                                                                    BERNARD!
                                                                    Senator, 33rd District1
    BFKish
-------
         REMARKS FOR ASSEMBLYMAN LOUIS ROMANO
                    iMINATED CONDOMINIUMS
                 PUBLIC MEETING
                  JULY 16.1997
               HQBOKEN HIGH SCHOOL
   LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. I WELCOME YOU HERE

THIS  EVENING AND ASK THAT YOU FEEL FREE TO

VOICE YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE UNFORTUNATE,

TRYING SITUATION IN WHICH THE FORMER RESIDENTS

OF THE "MERCURY CONDOS" FIND THEMSELVES.
   OVER A YEAR AGO, SIXTEEN FAMILIES WERE

FORCED OUT OF THE BUILDING THEY CALLED HOME,

AFTER A HIGH CONCENTRATION OF MERCURY WAS

DISCOVERED.   THIS  BUILDING HAS  APPARENTLY

HARBORED  THIS  CONTAMINATION  FOR  YEARS,

HOWEVER, IT ONLY BECAME APPARENT DURING THE
-------
RENOVATION OF CERTAIN APARTMENTS IN JANUARY




OF 1995.




   IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE BUILDING




WAS A FORMER INDUSTRIAL SITE AND THE LOCATION




A HOME FOR  MANY BUSINESSES, BEFORE IT WAS




PURCHASED IN 1993 BY THE GRAND STREET ARTISTS




PARTNERSHIP DURING THESE RENOVATIONS.
   IT IS NOT MY PURPOSE TO QUESTION HOW THESE




RESIDENTS  WERE  ALLOWED TO  MOVE  INTO A




BUILDING OF THIS NATURE. MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT




WAS ULTIMATELY DISCOVERED AND DOCUMENTED




THAT MERCURY VAPORS HAVE PERMEATED THE AIR,




CAUSING  SEVERAL RESIDENTS  TO  EXPERIENCE




MERCURY LEVEL IN THEIR URINE.
-------
FAMILIES WILL FINALLY BE PUT ON THE FINAL ROAD




TO RECOVERY.  ALSO, I MIGHT ADD THAT I HAVE




INTRODUCED LEGISLATION THAT WILL PREVENT THIS




TYPE OF THING FROM EVER HAPPENING AGAIN. MY




BILL WILL REQUIRE ANY PERSON WHO CONSTRUCTS




NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSING ON ANY PROPERTY THAT




WAS  PREVIOUSLY  USED  AS  AN   INDUSTRIAL




ESTABLISHMENT, TO INVESTIGATE THE PROPERTY AND




MAKE SURE THATJ^Q HAZARDOUS CONTAMINANTS
    THANK YOU FOR YOUR INDULGENCE IN ALLOWING




ME TO EXPRESS MY VIEWS THIS EVENING.
-------
                ASSEMBLY, No. 1886
   STATE  OF  NEW JERSEY
                  INTRODUCED MAY 6, 1996
              Bj .Irfc.-u.ujUMu ROMANO »o*i
 i   AN ACT concerning residential housing development, supplementing
 2      P.L.1975. c.217 (C.52:27D-119 et seq.) and amending P.L.1993.
 3      c.139.
 4
 5      BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State
 6   of New Jersey:
 1
 8      1. (New section)  a.  No person shall construct new residential
 9   housing on any property that at any time was used as an industrial
10   establishment unless that person, prior to the construction,  conducts
i i   4 enacted IIM) inlended Io be omitted in the Uw.

      Mailer underlined Ihus is ne» nuller.
-------
                               AISS6
                                  2
 1    u follows:
 2      23.   A» used  in  »ectioni  23 through  43 of P.LI993. c.139
 3    (C.58:IOB-letieq.):
 4      "Are« of concern" means any location where contaminants are or
 5    were  known  or suspected  to  have been discharged,  generated,
 6    manufactured, refined,  transported, stored,  handled,  treated,  or
 7    disputed, or wtictc c**uraira»tt have cr may  have, migntfl
 8      "Authority"  means  the New Jeney  Ecooomic  Development
 9    Authority established pursuant to P.L.I974, c.80 (C.34:1B-1 et seq.);
10      "Contamination" or "contaminant" means any discharged hazardous
11    substance as defined pursuant  to  section 3 of P.L.1976, c.Ul
12   (C.58:10-23. lib), hazardous waste as defined pursuant to section 1 of
13   P.L.1976, c.99 (C.I3:1£-38), or pollutant as defined  pursuant to
14   section 3 of P.L.1977, c.74 (C.58:10A-3);
15      "Department" means the Department of Environmental Protection
16   [and Energy];
17      "Discharge" means an inientional  or  unintentional  action  or
18   omission  resulting in the releasing,  spilling, leaking,  pumping,
'n   pouring  cmilLir.e.  emplyinc or ^unp'iis °(•* contaminant onto the
2(j   land or intoihe water*01 me Ma;e or into j building tn uii> State:
21      "Engineering controls" means  any mechanism  to  contain  or
22   stabilize contamination or ensure the  effectiveness  of a  remedial
23   action.  Engineering controls may include, without limitation, caps,
24   covers, dikes, trenches, leachate collection systems, signs, fences and
25   access controls;
26      "Financial assistance" means loans or loan guarantees;
27      "Institutional control' means a  mechanism used to  limit human
28   activities at or near a contaminated site, or to ensure the effectiveness
 29   of the remedial action  over  time,  when contaminants remain at a
 30   contaminated site in levels  or concentrations above the applicable
 31   remediation  standard  that  would  allow  unrestricted  use of that
     I'.  ,       Institutional  controls may  include, without limitation,
 33   structure, land, and natural resource use restrictions, well restriction
 34   areas, and deed notices;
 35      '"No further action letter" means a  written determination by the
 36   department that based upon an evaluation of the historical use of a
 37   particular site, or of an area of concern or areas of concern at that site,
 38   as  applicable, and any  other investigation or action  the department
 39  deems necessary, there are no discharged contaminants present at the
 40   site, ai the area of concern or areas of concern, at any other site to
 41    which  a discharge originating at the site has migrated, or that any
 42   discharged contaminants present at the site or  that have migrated from
 43   the  site   have  been  remediated  in  accordance with  applicable
 44   remediation regulations;
 45      "Preliminary assessment" means the first  phase in the process of
 46   identifying  areas  of concern and determining whether  contaminants
-------
                               AIS86
                                  3
 1   are or were presentat• site or have migrated or are mifratinf from a
 2   site, and shall include the initial search for and evaluation of. existing
 3   site specific operational and environmental information, both current
 4   and historic, to determine if further investigation  concerning the
 S   documented, alleged, suspected or latent discharge of any contaminant
 A   U required. T>- •—%luati«n of historic information shall be conducted
 7   from 193210 dwprcw.n, except that ttw ikputnent  may require the
 8   search  for and evaluation  of  additional  information  relating to
 9   ownership and use of the site prior to  1932 if such information is
10   available through  diligent inquiry of the public records;
11       "Remedial action" means  those actions taken at a site or offsile if
12   a contaminant has migrated or is migrating therefrom, as may be
13   required by  the  department,  including the removal,  treatment,
14   containment, transportation, securing,  or  other  engineering  or
15   treatment measures, whether of a  permanent nature or otherwise,
16   designed to ensure that any discharged contaminant at the site or that
17   has  migrated or is migrating  from the  site,  is  remediated  in
18   compliance with the applicable remediation standards;
1°       "Rerredial investigation" rr"»ns ?. n«-or<««« to determine the nature.
2u  ana extent ot a aischajge  01 a cuntaii.ii.aru ai <> sue ur a ui»\:h<».'gr jf
21   a contaminant that has migrated  or is migrating from the site and the
22  problems presented by a discharge, and may include data collected,
23  site characterization, sampling, monitoring, and the gathering of any
24  other sufficient and relevant information necessary to determine the
25   necessity for remedial action and to support the evaluation of remedial
26   actions if necessary;
27      "Remediation" or  "remediate"  means al!  necessary  actions to
28   investigate  and  clean up  any  known, suspected, or  threatened
29   discharge of contaminants, including, as necessary, the preliminary
30   assessment, site investigation, remedial investigation, and remedial
31    action;
32      "Si;  HI'--*    f  •" r, •        collection and evaluation of data
33   adequate to determine whether or not discharged contaminants exist
34   at a site or have migrated or are migrating from the site at  levels in
35   excess of the applicable remediation  standards.  A site investigation
36   shall be developed based upon the information collected pursuant to
37   the preliminary assessment;
 38      "Remedial action workplan"  means a plan for the remedial action
 39   to be  undertaken at  a site, or  at any area to which  a discharge
40   originating at a site  is migrating  or has migrated; a description of the
41   remedial action to be used to remediate a  site; a time schedule and
42   cost estimate of the implementation of the remedial action; and any
43   other information the department deems necessary;
 44      "Remediation  fund"  means  the Hazardous  Discharge  Site
 45    Remediation Fund  established  pursuant to section  26 of P.L. 1993,
 46   c.!39(C.58:10B-4);
-------
                               AI8S6
                                 4
 1      'Remediation funding source' means the methods of financing the
 2   remediation of a discharge required to be established by a person
 3   performing the remediation pursuant to section 25 of P.L. 1993. c. 139
 4   (C.58:10B-3);
 5      'Remediation standards" means the combination of numeric and
 6   .narrative •faadards to which contaminants must be remediated for
 7   toil. £yjldiAt_iBicgg£«_/TO'indwit?T. or turfac* water as provided by
 8   the  department  pursuant  to  section  35  of  PJ-1993,  c.139
 9   (C58:10B-12).  (cf:P.LI993.c.l39,s.23)
10
11      3. Section35ofP.LI993.c.l39(C.58:10B-12)isamendedtoread
12   as follows:
13      35. a. The Department of Environmental Protection [and Energy]
14   shall  adopt  minimum  remediation standards  for soil,  building
15   interiors, groundwaier. and surface water quality necessary for the
16  remediation  of  contamination of real  property.  The remediation
17   standards shall be developed to ensure that the potential for harm to
18   public health and safety and to the environment is minimized to
19  acceptable levels,  taking  into consideration   the  location, the
10  suuooi«J.ngi,-H»« ir.tEr,dt
-------
                               AISS6
                                  3
 I   scenarios as to amounts of contaminants to which humans or other
 2   receptors will be exposed, when and where  those exposures  will
 3   occur, and the amount of that exposure;
 4      (3) avoid the use of redundant conservative assumptions.  The
 S   department shall avoid the use of redundant conservative assumptions
 6   by the OK of »*•»•""•** '^at provide an adequate margin of safety and
 7   which avoid the «tt r'^aortalisttc conservative exposure paruaeten
 S   and which guidelines make use of the guidance and regulations for
 9   exposure assessment developed by the United States Environmental
10   Protection Agency pursuant to the "Comprehensive Environmental
11   Response, Compensation, and  Liability  Act  of 1980,"  42 U.S.C.
12   (9601 et seq. and other statutory authorities as applicable; and
13      (4) where feasible, establish the remediation standards as numeric
14   or narrative standards setting forth acceptable levels or concentrations
15   for particular contaminants.
16     c. (I) The department shall develop residential and nonresidential
17   soil remediation standards that are protective of public health and
18   safety.   For contaminants  that are  mobile  and  transportable  to
'9  £f«xjndwatcr  lh&  residential and nonresideniiaJ soil remediation
20   sundaicii shall  be protective of  grounclw.itcr and surface wtsfiar
21    Residential  soil  remediation  standards  shall be  set  at levels  or
22  concentrations of contamination for real property based upon the use
23   of that property  for residential or similar uses and which will allow
24   the unrestricted use of that property without exceeding a health risk
25   level greater than that provided in subsection d. of this  section.
26   Nonresidential soil remediation standards  shall be set at  levels or
27   concentrations of contaminants that recognize the lower likelihood of
28   exposure to contamination on property  that will  not  be  used for
29   residential or similar uses. Whenever real property is remediated to a
30   nonresidentia) soil remediation standard, except as otherwise provided
31   in paragraph (3) of subsection g. of this section, the department  shall
32   require, pursuant to section 36 of P.L. 1993, c.l 39 (C ^S,'"'0  '^)
-------
                                A1SS6
                                  6
         *«<* ~M^ will allow the miiettricted UK of thlt Droceitv without
 2   eiceedint i health ritk level yreater than that provided In mbtac^jgn
 3   d. of thii icction. Nonnaidentitl buildint Interior rtindirdi thill h{
 4   Mt it teveli or concentrations of contamininti thlt recotnize tf|e
 5   lower likelihood of exposure to contamination on pfopertv thil wil|
 6   not be Hjtj fgf ft*idcntitl or iimilir utei. ^henever real property jf
 7   rejr*tdi>tcd to i noBr***
 9   section, the department  thall require,  purtutnt  to  lection 36 of
10   P.L.J993. c.l 39 (C.58:IOB-131.  that the use  of the  property be
1 1   restricted to nonreiidential or other uses compitible with the extern
12   of the contamination of the building interior and thlt iccett to thy
13   site be restricted in a manner compatible with the allowable use of
14   that property.
IS      d.  In developing minimum remediation standards intended to be
16   protective of public health and safety, the depanment shall  identify
17   the hazards posed by a contaminant to determine whether exposure to
1 8   that contaminant can cause an increase in the  incidence of an adverse
!9   hfalih  effect and whether (he adverse  health effect may  occur in
-l>   huiitunS. ~nc uepaftntenTaKa!! wi
21   remediation standards for both residential and nonresidential  uses
22   that:
23      (1)  for human carcinogens, as categorized by the United States
24   Environmental Protection Agency, will result in an additional cancer
25   risk of one in one million;
26      (2)  for noncarcinogens. will limit the Hazard Index for any given
27   effect to a value not exceeding one.
28      The health risk levels established in this subsection are for any
29   particular contaminant and not for the cumulative effects of more than
30   one contaminant at a site.
31      e.    Remediation  standards and other requirements established
32   pursuant to this section shall apply to remediation activities required
33   pursuant to the "Spill Compensation and Control Act," P.L.1976,
34   c.141 (C. 58: 10-23.1  I et seq ). the "Water Pollution Control Act."
35   P.L.I977, c.74 (C.58:IOA-1 et seq.), P. L. 1986, c.102 (C.58:10A-2I
36   et  seq.), the  "Industrial  Site  Recovery Act,"  P.L.I983,  c.330
37   (C. 1 3 : 1 K-6 et al.), the "Solid Waste Management Act." P.L. 1 970, c.39
38   (C.13:1E-1 ct seq.),  the "Comprehensive Regulated Medical Waste
39   Management Act," P L.I989, c.34 (C.13:1E-48.1  et seq.). the "Major
40   Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting Act," P. L. 1981, c. 279 (C.13:lE-49
4 1   et seq.), the "Sanitary Landfill Facility Closure and Contingency Fund
42   Act."P.L.198l,c.306(C 13: lE-lOOet seq.), the "Regional Low-Level
43   Radioactive  Waste Disposal  Facility Siting  Act," P.L. 1987, c.333
44   (C.13ME-177 et seq.), or any other law or regulation by  which the
45   State may compel a person  to perform remediation  activities on
46   contaminated property.  However, nothing in this subsection shall be
-------
                               A1886
                                  7
 I   construed  to  limit  the  authority of  the  department to establish
 2   discharge limits for pollutants or to prescribe penalties for violations
 3   of those limits pursuant to P.L. 1977, c.74 (C.58:IOA-1 etseq.), orto
 4   require the complete removal of nonhazardous solid waste pursuant
 S   to law.
 6     f.  (I) A person performing a remediation of contaminated real
 7   property, in \'A* ».'«.-:ig the etiabluhed micimum soil remediation
 8   standard for either residential use or nonrwidential use adopted by the
 9   department pursuant to subsection c. of this section, may submit to the
10  department a  request to  use  an  alternative residential  use or
11   nonresidential use  soil  remediation standard.   The  use  of an
12  alternative soil remediation standard shall be based upon site specific
13  factors which may include (I) physical site characteristics  which may
14  vary  from those used by the department in the development of the soil
15  remediation standards adopted pursuant to this section; or (2) a site
16  specific risk  assessment.  If  a person  performing a remediation
17  requests to use an alternative soil remediation  standard based upon  a
18   site specific risk  assessment, that person  shall demonstrate to the
19  department lha« the requested deviation  from  the risk  assessment
A3   piuicxo!  us£d  by  ihe  uepaiiiiierti  in  t!it  &tfeiof>r>»£rii  of  6til
21   remediation standards pursuant to this section is consistent with the
22   guidance and regulations for exposure assessment developed by the
23   United  States Environmental  Protection  Agency pursuant  to the
24   "Comprehensive  Environmental  Response,  Compensation,  and
25   Liability Act of 1980." 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq. and other statutory
26   authorities as applicable. A site specific risk assessment may consider
27   exposure scenarios  and assumptions that take into account the form
28   of the contaminant present, natural biodegradation, fate and transport
29   of the contaminant, and  available toxicological data that are based
30   upon generally accepted and peer  reviewed  scientific evidence or
31   methodologies.
3£            j determination  by  the  department that  the requested
 33   alternative remediation  standard  is protective of  public health and
 34   safety, as established  in subsection  d. of this section, and protective
 35   of the environment pursuant  to  subsection a. of this section, the
 36   alternative residential use or nonresidential  use  soil remediation
 37   standard shall be approved by the department.
 38      (2) The department  may,  upon its  own  initiative,  require an
 39   alternative remediation  standard  for a particular contaminant  for a
40   specific real property site, in lieu of using the established minimum
 41   residential use or nonresidential use soil remediation standard adopted
 42   by the department for a particular contaminant  pursuant  to this
 43   section.  The department  may  require an alternative remediation
 44   standard pursuant  to this  paragraph upon a  determination by the
 45   department, based on the weight of the scientific  evidence, that due
 46   to specific physical  site characteristics of the subject real property, the
-------
 I   UM  of  the  Adopted  residential use  or nonresidential use  soil
 2   remediation  standards would not be protective of public health or
 3   safety or of the environment, as appropriate.
 4      g.    The development,  selection,  and implementation of any
 5   remediation standard or  remedial  action shall ensure that it  is
 6   protective of public health, safety, and the environment, as applicable,
 7   as provided in this xectinn.  In detenntnii>t the appropriate remedial
 8   action that shall  occur at  a site in order to meet (ho established
 9   remediation standards, the department, or any person performing the
10   remediation, shall base its decision on the following factors:
II      (I) Permanent  and nonpermanent remedies shall be allowed except
12   that  permanent  remedies  shall be preferred over nonpermanent
13   remedies for remedial actions;
14      (2) Contamination may, upon the department's approval, be left
15   onsite at levels or concentrations that exceed the minimum building
16  interior  or  soil  remediation   standards for  residential  use  or
17   nonresidential  use  if  the  implementation  of  institutional  or
18  engineering controls at that  site will  result in the protection of public
19  health, safety  and the environment at  the risk level established  in
1C  siibsectiCn d.  of this ?ecii(*i ir,d if the fc^ircrror.ts ejtablishrd  in
21   subsections a.,  b.. c.  and d  of section  36 of P.L.1993, c.139
22  (C.58.IOB-13)aremet;
23     (3) Real property on  which  there is soil or a building interior that
24   has not  been remediated to the  residential buildine interior or soil
25   remediation standards, or real property on which the building interior.
26   soil, groundwater, or surface water  has been remediated to meet the
27   required health risk level by the use of engineering or institutional
28 ^ controls, may be developed or used for residential purposes, or for any
29   other similar purpose, if (a) all areas of that real property or within a
30   building interior at which  a person may come into contact  with the
31   building interior or with soil are remediated to meet the residential
32   buildtng intgrr^jf or salt rtjme
-------
                               A18W
                                 9
 I   real property for contamination coming onto the lite from another
 2   property owned and operated by another person, unleu the owner or
 3   operator is in any way responsible for the discharge;
 4      (6) Groundwater that it contaminated shall not be required to be
 5   remediated to a level or concentration for any particular contaminant
 6   lower than th*  uv»i or concentration that is migrating  onto  the
 7   property  from •*•£;.- property  owned  and  operated by  another
 8   person;
 9      (7) The technical performance, effectiveness and reliability of the
10   proposed remedial action in attaining and maintaining compliance
11   with applicable remediation standards and required health risk levels.
12   In reviewing a proposed remedial action, the department  shall also
13   consider the  ability of the owner or operator to implement  the
14   proposed remedial action within a reasonable time frame without
IS   jeopardizing public health, safety or the environment;
16     (8) In the case of a proposed remedial action that will not meet the
17  established minimum residential use soil remediation standards, the
18  cost of  all available  permanent  remedies  is unreasonable, as
19  d«v*rT!med by department  rules  designed to  provide a cost-based
lu  preference foi Tiic use ofpcinunertfcmCdit's.  The  oepftilnrr.t s(\*H
21   adopt regulations, no later than 18 months after the effective date of
22   this act. establishing criteria and procedures for allowing a person to
23  demonstrate that the cost of all available permanent remedies is
24   unreasonable. Until the department adopts those regulations, it shall
25   not require a person performing a remedial action to implement  a
26   permanent remedy, unless the cost of implementing a nonpermanent
    v
21   remedy is  50 percent or  more  than  the cost of implementing  a
28   permanent remedy; provided,  however, that the preceding provision
29   shall not apply to any owner or operator of an industrial establishment
30   who is implementing a remedial  action pursuant to subsection i. of
31   section 4 of P.L.1983,c.330;
32      (9) The use of the establish •    5: '  nt  : v-" '"• «  interior or
33   soil remediation standard shall not be unreasonably disapproved by
34   the department.
35      The department may require the person performing the remediation
36   to supply the information required pursuant to this subsection as  is
37   necessary for the department to make a determination.
 38      h.  (I) The department shall adopt  regulations  which establish a
 39   procedure for a person to demonstrate that a particular parcel of land
40   contains  large  quantities  of historical fill  material.    Upon  a
41   determination by the department that large quantities of historic Till
42   material exist on that parcel of land, there is a rebuttable presumption
43   that the department shall not require any person to remove or treat the
 44   fill material in order to comply with a remediation standard. In these
 45   areas the department shall establish by regulation the requirement for
 46   engineering or institutional controls that  are designed  to prevent
-------
                               A1IW
                                 10
 1   exposure of  these contaminants to humans,  thtt  allow for the
 2   continued use of the  property, thtt are less costly than removal or
 3   treatment, which  maintain the health risk levels as established in
 4   subsection d. of this section, and, as applicable,  are protective of the
 S   environment.  The department may rebut the presumption only upon
 6   « finding hv •»—  7-**—aderance  of  the evidence that the use of
 7   engineering  or institutional controls wovU not be  effective to
 8   protecting public  health,  safety, and the environment.   For the
 9   purposes of this paragraph "historic  fill material* means generally
10   large  volumes of non-indigenous  material,  used  to raise  the
11   topographic  elevation of a site, which were contaminated prior to
12   emplacement  and are  in no way connected with  the operations at the
13   location of emplacement and which include, but are not limited to,
14   construction  debris,  dredge  spoils, incineralor residue, demolition
15   debris, fly ash, and non-hazardous solid waste.  Historic fill material
16   shall  not include any  material  which is  substantially  chromate
17   chemical production waste or any other chemical production waste or
18   waste from processing of melal or mineral ores, residues, slags or
 19   uilines.
.iG      (l)  Trie department snail  ijevciop reccii.nitnuainjiis fi>i  ici.icd.-i
21   actions in large  areas of historic industrial  contamination.  These
22   recommendations  shall  be designed  to meet the health risk levels
23   established in subsection d. of this  section, and to be protective of the
24   environment  and shall take into account the industrial history of these
25   sites, the extent of the  coniamination that may exist,  the costs of
26   remedial actions, the economic  impacts of  these  policies, and the
27   anticipated uses of these properties. The department, within one year
 28   of the enactment  of this act,  shall issue  a  report to the Senate
 29   Environment Committee and to the Assembly Energy and Hazardous
 30   Waste   Committee,  or   their   successors,  explaining   these
 31    recommendations and making any recommendations for legislative or
 32    regulatory action.
 33      (3) The department may not, as a condition of allowing the use of
 34    a nonresideniial  use  soil  remediation  standard,  or .the use  of
 35    institutional  or engineering controls, or where a building interior will
 36    not be remediated to  meet the residential building interior remediation
 37    standards, require the owner of that real property, except as provided
 38    in section 36 of P.LI993, c.l39 (C.58:10B-13), to restrict the use of
 39    that property through the filing  of  a deed  easement,  covenant, or
 40   condition.
 41      i.  The department may not require a remedial action workplan to
 42   be prepared  or implemented or engineering or institutional controls
 43   to be  imposed upon any real property unless sampling performed at
 44   that real property demonstrates the existence of contamination above
 45   the  applicable remediation standards.
 46     j    Upon the  approval by the department of a remedial action
-------
                               AIS86
                                 11
 1   workplan. or similar plan that describe! the extent of contamination
 2   at a site and the remedial action to be implemented to address that
 3   contamination, the department may not subsequently  require a change
 4   to  that workplan  or similar  plan in order to compel a different
 5   remediation standard due to the fact that the established remediation
 6   standards have changed; however, the department may  compel a
 7   different mnediatinn  standard  if the difference between the new
 8   remediation standard and the remediation standard  approved in the
 9   workplan or  other  plan  differs by an order of magnitude.  The
10   limitation to  the department's authority to change a  workplan or
11   similar  plan  pursuant to this subsection  shall  only  apply if the
12   workplan or  similar  plan  is being  implemented  in a reasonable
13   timeframe,  as may  be indicated in  the approved  remedial action
14   workplan or similar plan.   k.  Notwithstanding any other  provisions
15   of this section, all remediation  standards and remedial actions that
16  involve real property located in the Pinelands area shall be  consistent
17   with the provisions of the "Pinelands Protection Act," PL. 1979, c. 111
18   (C.13:18A-1 et seq.), any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant
19  thereto, and with  section 502 of the National Parks and Recreation
:C   Ac; of !978,  16U.S.C. (4711.
21       1.  Upon the adoption of a remediation standard for a particular
22  contaminant in soil,  a building interior, groundwater. or surface water
23   pursuant to this section, the department may amend  that remediation
24   standard only upon a finding that a new  standard is  necessary to
25   maintain the health risk levels established in subsection d.  of section
26   35 of P.L.1993, c.139 (C.58:108-12) or to protect the environment,
27   as applicable. The department may not amend a public health based
28   soil or building interior remediation  standard to a  level that would
29   result in a health risk  level  more protective than that provided for in
30   subsection d. of section 35  of P.L.1993, c.139 (C.58.10B-12).
31      m.  Nothing in P.L.1993, c.139 shall be construed to restrict or in
32   any way diminish the public participation which is otherwise provided
33   under the provisions of the "Spill Compensation and Control Act,"
34   P.L.1976, c.141 (C.58:10-23.11 et seq.).
35   (cf: P.L.1993, c.l 39, s.35)
36
37      4.  Section 36 of P.L.I 993, c.l 39 (C.58:10B-13) is amended to read
 38   as follows:
 39      36.  a.  When real property is remediated  to  a nonresidential
40   building interior or  soil  remediation  standard or engineering or
41   institutional controls are used in lieu of remediating a site  to meet an
42   established   remediation  standard  for  a  building  interior,  soil,
43   groundwater, or surface water, the department shall, as a condition of
 44   the use of that standard or control measure:
 45      (1)  require the establishment of any engineering or institutional
 46   controls the department determines are  reasonably  necessary to
-------
                                AI886
                                  12
 1    prevent exposure to the contaminants,  require  maintenance,  at
 2    necessary, of those controls, and require the restriction of the use of
 3    the property in a manner that prevents exposure;
 4      (2) require, with the consent of the owner of the real property, the
 S    recordinf with the office of the county recording officer, in the county
 6    in which the property  is located,  a notice to inform prospective
 7    holders of att intere*: is thr property that contaminstiof) exuts oo the
 8    property at a level that may starutorily restrict certain uses of or access
 9    to all or part of that property, a delineation of those  restrictions, a
10    description of all specific engineering or institutional controls at the
11    property that exist and that  shall be maintained in order to prevent
12    exposure to contaminants remaining on the property, and the written
13    consent to the notice by the owner of the property;
14      (3)  require a notice to the governing body of each municipality in
15    which the  property is located that contaminants  will exist at the
16   property above  residential use soil remediation standards or any other
17   remediation standards and specifying the restrictions on the use of or
 18   access to all or  part of that property  and of the specific engineering or
 10   institutional ccntrols at ihr ^'^r^rty tfv< "ist and that  «ha)l  be
lu   maintained,
21       (4) require, when determined necessary by the department, that
22   signs be posted at any location at the site where access  is restricted or
23   in those  areas  that must  be  maintained in a prescribed manner, to
24   inform persons on the property that there are restrictions on the use of
25   that property or restrictions  on access to any part of the site;
 26      (5)  require that  a  list  of the  restrictions  be  kept on  site  for
 27   inspection by governmental enforcement officials;  and
 28      (6) require a person, prior to commencing a remedial action, to
 29   notify the governing body of each municipality wherein the property
 30   being remediated is  located.  The notice shall include, but not be
 31   limited to, the commencement date  for the remedial action; the name,
                Jdress  and business  telephone number  of the  person
 33   implementing  the remedial  action, or his designated representative;
 34   and a brief description of the remedial action.
 35       b.   If  the  owner of the real property does not consent to  the
 36   recording of a notice pursuant to paragraph (2) of subsection a. of this
 37   section, the department shall require the use of a residential buildin£
 38   interior and soil remediation standard in the remediation of that  real
 39   property.
 40      c.  Whenever engineering or institutional controls on property as
 41   provided in subsection a. of this section are no longer required, or
 42    whenever  the  engineering or  institutional  controls are  changed
 43   because of the  performance  of subsequent  remedial  activities, a
 44   change in conditions at the site, or the adoption of revised remediation
 45   standards,  the department shall require that the owner or operator of
 46   that property record with the office of the county recording officer a
-------
->
                               A18S6
                                 13
 I   notice that the ute of the property it no longer restricted or delineating
 2   the new restrictions. The department shall also require that the owner
 3   or operator notify, in writing, the municipality in which the property
 4   is located of the removal or change of the restrictive use conditions.
 S      d.   The owner or lessee of any real property,  or any person
 6   ftfwrattng • hi*—$ on «*al property, which has been remediated to
 7   a nonrestdemtti use gliding interior or soil remediation standard or
 8   on which the department has  allowed engineering or institutional
 9   controls for a building interior, soil, ground water, or surface water to
10   protect the public health, safety, or the environment, as applicable,
11   shall maintain the engineering or institutional controls as required by
12. the department. An owner, lessee, or operator who takes any action
13   that results in the improper alteration or removal of engineering or
14   institutional  controls or who fails to maintain the engineering or
IS   institutional controls as required by the department, shall be subject
16  to the penalties and actions set forth in section 22 of P.L.1976, c.141
17   (C.58:10-23.1 lu). The provisions of this subsection  shall not apply
18   if a notification received pursuant to subsection b.  of this section
ir>  authorizes all restrictions or co"!ro!c ».o be-rer^vrrl from ibr subject
l(j  pioperty.
21      e.  Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, or any rule,
22   regulation, or order  adopted  pursuant thereto  to  the  contrary,
23   whenever contamination at a property is remediated in compliance
24   wiih any building  interior,  soil, groundwater, or  surface water
25   remediation standards that were in effect at the completion of the
26   remediation,  the  owner or  operator of the  property  or person
27   performing the remediation, except  as otherwise  provided in this
28   section, shall not be liable for the cost of any additional remediation
29   that may be required by a subsequent adoption  by the department of
30   a more stringent remediation standard for a particular  contaminant.
31   Upon the adoption of a regulation that amends a remediation standard,
32   only« ^r. T   <   lia. •       .: up and remove that cgntamination
 33   pursuant to section 8 of P.L.1976, c.141 (C.58:10-23.llg) shall be
 34  liable for any additional remediation costs necessary to  bring the site
 35   into compliance with the new remediation standards except that no
 36  person  shall be so liable unless  the difference between  the  new
 37   remediation standard and the level or concentration of a contaminant
 38   at the property differs by an  order of magnitude.
 39     Nothing in  the provisions of this subsection shall  be construed to
 40   affect the authority of the department, pursuant to subsection f. of this
 41    section,  to require  additional remediation  on real property where
 42  engineering or institutional controls were implemented.
 43     Nothing in the provisions of this subsection shall limit the  rights
 44   of a person, other than the State, or any department  or agency thereof,
 45   to bring a civil action for damages, contribution, or indemnification
 46   as provided by statutory or common law.
-------
                               AIM6
                                 14
 I      f.  Whenever the department approve* or has approved (he use of
 2  engineering or institutional controls for the remediation of a building
 3  interior, soil, groundwater, or surface water, to protect public health,
 4  safety or the environment in lieu of remediating a site to a condition
 5  that  meets an established residential  remediation  standard, the
 f>  ^Hdneat *fc«11 "** require additional remediation of that site unless
 7  the crtfcrtwering or  HMitutional controls no longer are protective of
 8  public health, safety, or the environment
 9  (cf:P.L.1993.c.l39.s.36)
10
11      S. This act shall take effect 90 days from enactment
12
13
14                            STATEMENT
15
16     This bill would require any person who constructs new residential
17  housing on any  property that has  been  used  as  an industrial
18  establishment, to  investigate  the  property to  determine if any
!Q  hsz^rious  cont»minants arc. feseni  at  levels  in  excess of the
iU  app.icaoic remcduttOfl stinAirds Tiic DepartnteiTtof  Eiivirociim&ifel
21   Protection is required to establish the applicable standards.
22     The bill would also require that as a condition for the issuance of
23  the construction permit  as required pursuant to  the "State  Uniform
24  Construction Code  Act," P.L.I975, c.217 (C.52:270-119  et seq.). the
25  property owner certify either that no contamination exists at the site
26  in excess of the applicable remediation standards or that the site has
27  been remediated.
28
29
30                          	
31
32   Requires investigation and cleanup  •"   i    ru        '  -nents to be
33  developed for residential housing.
-------
                                 COUNTY Or HUDSON
                        OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
                                 BRENNAN COURT HOUSE
                                  583 NEWARK AVENUE
JERT C. JANI8ZEWSKI          JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY 07306                   (201) 79M200
 COUNTY extounvt
  July 16, 1997

  Mr. John Hansen, Regional Project Manager
  US EPA-Region n
  Emergency and Remedial Response Division
  290 Broadway 19th Floor
  New York, New York 10007-1866

  Dear Mr. Hanson.

  Please accept this letter of support for the US EPA's plans and efforts relating to the Grand Street
  Mercury Superrund site  It is of paramount importance to the health and well-being of Hoboken
  residents that the US EPA demolish the contaminated building(s) and remediate the polluted site
  in a safe and timely manner.

  I am extremely confident that in permanently relocating the former residents of the Grand Street
  property, the US EPA will use the utmost care and respect.  However, the former residents of the
  site should be treated as victims in this matter -- for many of them, the sequence of events has
  amounted to a total loss I strongly urge the US EPA to provide the owners and their families
  with the fair-market-value of their properties.

  The County of Hudson stands ready to provide any assistance to the former residents of the site,
  the City of Hoboken and the US EPA If you have any questions feel free to call me at (201)
  795-6200.

  Thank you for your consideration.

  Sincerely,
  Robert C  Jasnszews
  County Executive
        Congressman Robert Menendez
        State Senator Bernard Kenny
        Assemblyman Rudy Garcia
        Assemblyman Louis Romano
        Freeholder Maurice Fitzgibbons
        Mayor Anthony Russo
                           An equal opportunity employer
-------
                 HOBOKEN TESTIMONY     7/16/9!
                            Michael Gochfdd, MD, PhD
                Department of Environmental and Community ^MV*inf
                                        and
                Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute
                        Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
                             Piscataway, NT 08855-1179

      I am Doctor Michael Gochttd, Clinical Professor of Environmental and Community
Medicine at the Robert Wood Jotmion Medical School in Piscataway, New Jeney. I have
V*»i r»r »»*! faculty fH*** «JTVH io*n md have specialized in problems related to lead,
nvrniry. try} other toxic materials in the environment Prior to mat i (iuected UK. LJivioiou
of Environmental and Occupational Health at the New Jersey Department of Health, and wu
directly involved in discussions regarding evacuation of residents around several sites.
Before that I performed occupational Tnfffk*inf examinations of workers in a number of north
Jeney factories that handled various forms of mercury.
      With regard to the 722 Grand Street building, our Environmental and Occupational
Health Sciences  Institute was contacted by the  Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) on December 23, 1995, and Dr. Howard Kipen, Director of our Division* •
of Occupational  Medicine participated in a public  meeting Building.  During January  to
March 1996, 27 adults from the building were evaluated at our clinical center, mainly by Dr.
Iris Udasin, one of our environmental medicine physicians,  and Dr. Nancy Fiedler, our
clinical psychologist, with regard to medical and neurobehavioral consequences of mercury
exposure.  This  work was supported by ATSDR.
      My remarks tonight represent my own medical experience and opinions, but I also
represent my colleagues at the Medical School, Drs. Udasin, Fiedler, and Kipen.
                        of m*rnirv-in1atert n«iTnhehavioral impairment in a number of the
levels and their performance on tests known to be affected by mercury.  In other words,
those with the higher mercury levels had reduced muscular coordination in their hands and
fingers and showed evidence of a tremor.
      Now, nearly 18 months later, we're beginning to re-evaluate the residents to
determine how much of their function has returned now that they're no longer exposed to
mercury.
      In addition to the neurobehavioral performance, Dr. Fiedler tested certain
psychological measures which showed a  severe level of psychologic distress among most of
the residents, in relation  to their sudden evacuation from the homes in which they had
invested large sums of money as well as many noun. They voiced anger,  frustration, and
Anxiety about their future.  Many of the  residents tested had  clinically significant psychiatric
problems resulting from the a combination of the mercury exposure and the need to be
evacuated. Their exposure to mercury had resulted in severe disruption and they had lost
control of their lives.
      Had they not been exposed to very high k/el.s <>j .r i .1 y, >\- ; <• •• " 1 not have
experienced these disruptions and would not be suffering their current distress.
-------
       Now IS months later, still living in temporary quarters, their lives still on hold, their
early anxiety was certainly warranted.
       Social scientists have studied other populations forced to relocate temporarily or
permanently because of flooding, war, or other disasters.  Such studies document the
scarring effects and the disruption of lives.
       Stresses over which people have no control are particularly damaging. In that sense
the residents of the Grand Street Building are not unique. But in another sense they ARE
unique.
       People whose homes are rendered uninhabitable by fire or flood eventually collect
intmyoa and rebuild their homes and lives.  The victims of Grand Street mercury, have not
been able to do so.
       V»w «11 sutfer various losses  in our lives, and we nuim»uaii OUIM**C^ ki*i o&wj ^
'get on with your iife\  The victims of Grand iireet mercury iurve not been ai>k to get un
with their lives.
       Trapped by forces over which they have no control, the former Grand Street
residents, are increasingly vulnerable to psycbophysiological damage.  Although the actual
neurologic consequences of their mercury poisoning  may eventually recover, the scarring
from having lost control of their lives and being "on hold" for so long, may leave a long-
term or even permanent mark.

How long can people be 'on hold". Certainly a few months is tolerable, and  most of us
have experienced such periods, for  example between jobs.  But the Grand Street victims have
been on hold already for 18 months.

It would be totally unrealistic to expect them to simply wait "on hold" for another 18
months, or for the 46 months projected by EPA if they were to re-occupy the buildling after
remediation.

They need rapid and definitive resolution so they can indeed "get on with their lives and
resume control over their future.

Although I have not personally evaluated whether the Grand Street building could be
remediated to residential standards, I do know from  personal experience here  in New Jersey,
that Superfund remediations rarely  proceed quickly or smoothly.  Often yean go by before
the remediation even begins.  During this period, environmental consultants conduct
"remedial investigations and feasibility studies" and environmental engineers set forth
remediation alternatives which  are then subject to several levels of review at the State and
Federal Level.  Even if all parties  were able to expedite the studies and review process,
remediation would not begin immediately. The EPA has estimated that remediation would
take more than 3  1/2 yean.  Thus assuming it were  to begin immediately, it would mean that
the victims would have been living "on hold" for at  least five  yean.

Thus from a Community Medicine point of view, it  is entirely inconceiv.^Ij thr;* Or r!*ai  !
Street residents should be subjected to waiting for remediation.
-------
In addition, for many and perhaps aH of the Grand Street victims, the building has become a
symbol of what has gone wrong in their lives. If the building were magically rendered
habitable overnight and they were required to return, it would be a constant reminder to them
of a very unpleasant event and period in their lives. Although we have not studied this for
each individual, I strongly believe that it is unrealistic to expect these people to return to this
building which, once a source of hope, has become a source of great pain.

I concur with the EPA's decision NOT to remediate this building for residential purposes. If
it were remediated the Grand Street victims should not be expected to return there.  Most
importantly, I urge a rapid resolution of the composition issue so that these victims can
seek appropriate  housing and begin pursuing normal lives.
 Michael Gochfeld, MD, PhD
-------
                                   Mark Graham
                                1026 Hudson Street
                                Hoboken, NJ 07030
                                    201-792-4037

                     Statement on EPA's Recommendation for
                           722 Grand Street Mercury Site
 appreciate this opportunity to speak.
 My f.uti -•--£,   •-_---_._.-••    ••  ••'•'!.                <_/
 3ur building. We were the ground breakers in Hoboken, we did it totally on our own,
 with a  tremendous amount of work and  a tremendous amount of debt, and we have lost it
 311, except  for the debt.

 I have a sense of pride being part of a group that had the courage and the audacity to take
 3n a challenge like this.  In this  national  climate of worshipping the individual, the self-
 starters, the risk-takers, we are the quintessential group. We were  also exceptionally
 cautious. We insisted on documentation  assuring us of the safety of this building for
 residential use.  When we received these  written assurances, we felt we were safe.  In a
 broader sense, that sense of safety is gone, forcefully replaced with an underlying distrust
 and constant stress droning within us.  My wife has developed a cardiac arrhythmia, ^nd
 ten months after the evacuation, I found  myself in the hospital with chest pains and
elevated blood pressure.  My wife was over three months pregnant during the evacuation,
and worry for the future of our son's health is relentless.
-------
Mark Graham
1026 Hudson Street
Hoboken, NJ 07030

The reality that brings us here tonight never should have happened.  With our caution
during the pre-purchase environmental review of the building, this message of "Unfit fa
Human Habitation" was beyond comprehension.  The resulting evacuation was absolute!
surreal, nightmarish. To me, we appeared as zombies, dragging our two plastic bags of
belongings down through the building, silent and numb with disbelief.  I feel echoes of
this disbelief within our group to this day.

With the emergence of this nightmare, the EPA appeared. As me group or us were in a
highly agitated state, the EPA acted as a reference point of sanity and reassurance. If it wer
not for the information, assistance, and support the EPA  provided, we would have been,
in addition to everything else,, homeless and bankrupt. \ challenge any of the federal
                    ^P','^  o  .£» £>KV £o**Cf}«£~ ^Iff-ffc^0
officials in WashingtoriThvho undertake to  lecture on the extreme environmental
positions, or the lack of importance of the Environmental Protection Agency to be silent
for just a brief time and open their eyes to the realities of the EPA's contributions to the
group of us and to this community.  They might learn that, if the EPA  can be accused of
having an agenda,  it is essentially  to protect the citizens from being poisoned and to  help
those who  have already been poisoned.
results in thib recommendation to aemonsn our iiumcb.   iue reduction u»  mo
termination creates an ache that will last a very long time.  But it is the right thing to do,
for us and for the surrounding community.

For my family and for the group of us, I thank the EPA for its intense efforts on our behalf
You have contributed to showing us that a sense of stability in our lives is coming in the
future, so that we can move on from this suspended animation in which we find
ourselves.

Thank you.
-------
COMMENT ON  THE PROPC   D PLAN BY THI U.S. KNVIRO.  2NTAL AGENCY FOR

THE GRAND STREET MERCURY SITE
     I  want  to make my comments not only on behalf  of  myself  and



my wife but  on behalf of our partners In what  seemed  like  a



wonderful  dream.  It was a wonderful dream .in which  we  transformed



an idle,  run down ghost of a building into a thriving  community



„:	tuiG z::i =.-'.'v.    "**ir.-v-gh oi»- *.*r* work,  sacrifice.



determination, resourcefulness and stubborn perseverance against



great odds we thought we had actually turned this wonderful dream



into a very wonderful reality. And we dreamed  for this city as
                                                                 • «


well, for the community we wanted to join together  with in



creating a bright future. We did not dream of  the living



nightmare this has become for all of us.







     We had solved one of the most difficult challenges facing



t-hose of us in the arts: how to afford adequate  housing that



included the studio work space we neeaea _o practice ^-i alia.



Our solution was to pool our resources and do  it ourselves. We



designed our homes and studios in every detail.  We  had every



thing we needed for the rest of our lives - a  wonderful home  full



of air, light and so much space to grow in, to raise  families in,



as well as the work space we needed to pursue  our careers..



Everything was thought out - door sizes to accommodate art  works,



the elevator size, special fireproofing, electrical wiring  and



water lines for future needs, ga^ery space, storage  space. We



    all this common space on the ground floor  and we  had planned



  community gallery, a space for concerts, performances, and  art
-------
COHMBNT ON THE PROPC   D  PLAN  BY THE U.S. KNVIRO.  JNTAL AGENCY FOR
THE GRAND STRUT MERCURY SITE


studios to hold classes  for the coonunity. In short we had

transformed this mothballed building into a place full of

creative life designed to accommodate all our needs present and

future, private and professional.  Those of you who saw what we

had accomplished were  amazed  and let me tell you so were we! And

in doing this we discovered something more: we discovered that

v«»«?  ev*rvf"*y «i:-^a3«.r  .' '•-•»! *-•- '*~g tv..-ais«lv«»y in a s*»'""r*» and

permanent home of  their  own,  but to build one's own home is tiia

moment in which we get to make  one poem,  at least,  of our lives

which expresses us completely.



       Many of us  were strangers at first who were brought

together by this shared  dream.  Working together,  building

together, learning to  rely on each other, deep friendships were

formed. Without realizing it  we were building our own small

conununitv, an extended family we could depend upon,  We looked

forward to raising chilaren togerner.  we j.oukeu ruLWdiu c.

celebrating together,  to sharing all the new challenges the

future held for us. Now  we share the devastation of this tragedy.

Our  family has been torn apart, we are dispersed and let me tell

you  we are in pain.
      I  can't  begin to  tell  you of the emotional devastation, the

 depression, the  loss,  the effects from the stress over the past

 nineteen  months.  How do you get rid of the horror, the trauma of

 the  way we  were  forced out  of  our homes and studios. Being
-------
surrounded by police,  surveillance helicopters flying overhead,
not being able  to leave the building with our  possessions,  being
assailed by  the press  corps, our homes  and studios invaded by
police and government  officials of all  stripes,  men in "space
suits" probing  all over the place. We felt humiliated, scared,
violated. The stress of our displacement,  as well  as the exposure
Wo h»<* •*•<"» t'hi*  trsi'llon* ^PT'- *"*s »-i-nv^v.f r<  '1^-ia-;? find
suffering. The  uncertainty of our situation, the limbo we find
ourselves in is numbing. It is a daily  struggle  to face our
responsibilities and continue on with our lives  as indeed we
must.

     We can  only hope  that all the parties who played a part  in
what  has befallen us and this community will come  together  in a
spirit of constructive cooperation to forward  the  remedy
recommended  bv  the Environmental Protection Agency.  It has  been
nineteen months since  we were evacuatea trotn our nomes.  nineteen
months in temporary relocation. That is nineteen months of  being
in limbo, displaced. That is nineteen months with  all our
financial resources, our life savings,  tied up.  Add  to that the
two and half years we  put into creating and building  this
project - that   comes  to over four years  of our  lives already
tied up in this!

     Now after  a year  and half of thorough study by  the  U.S.
Environmental  Protection Agency a recommendation has been made.
They have studied our  building, they have studied  us. Studied and
-------
studied and studied.  It  it  clear by now that this recommended
plan is th« only feasible plan  that can begin to heal this
horrible tear to the  fabric  of  our lives,  to the fabric of this
community. We fear  for our  futures.  Is  it  not enough that we have
to live with the fears for  our  health and  the health of our
children for the rest of our  lives? Is  it  not enough that we have
tc live v.f5 th *he ronaeauences of the orde*.i  o* *•*»« pvi<-u*tior 7n.1
the nightmare of displacment? We fear we will never be able to
replace what we had or afford anything  close to it.  Proceed with
this plan with all due speed! Restore something of our lives!
Restore our faith in  the system we relied  upon to protect us and
which failed us. Please don't fail us again!
                                        Curtis Crystal
                                        July  16,  1997
-------
 China Mark* • 22 Cattwrirw St, 2nd Fir. • N«w Y«K NY 10030 • (212)  687-3329
        STATEMENT FOR PUBLIC MEETING. HOBQKEN HIGH SCHOOL. 7-16-97

My name to China Marks.
 In 1979 1 moved from Manhattan to Hobokcn, where I lived and made art in raw industrial
space on the top floor of Hoboken Glass at 805 CUnton St Summers I baked and winters I froze.
71 «. >uo.' U..'*.c>i of^I die iC..'. ^~fi iiSiftg. Bui noooua\ got mtu uiy unxni, 
-------
                                IIRINABOCCHINO
July 16, 1997
John Hansei
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Envirofuncntal Protection Agency
290  Broadway 19th floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
Dear John Hansen,

I am glad to have read your report, which is both thorough and explicit about the options
researched by the EPA to solve the hazard of my former home, the mercury contaminated site
at 722 Grand Street.  The recommendation to demolish the building and remove it and  it's soil
from the Hoboken community is truly the only safe and sane solution. The recommendation to
grant myself and the other families permanent relocation is a welcome light at the end of our
tunnel. Both these recommendations will help to heal this terrible long and drawn out wound
we have been living through.

Since the knock at my door on December 21, 1995 and a request for urine from myself, my
husband and my baby, my life has never been the same.  Every day has some element of
stress, fear and sadness because of the exposure  we have been exposed to and the loss of what
we created for a home.

We left the next morning, after receiving the high mercury readings in my husband, my eight
month old baby and myself. We did not know where we were to go and what we were to do.
It was one of the worst nights of my life.   We did not sleep and were filled with questions and
feared for our health and that  of our little baby.  It was very difficult to  leave the home that we
built with our own hands, the home that had all  our belongings,  the home with all my artwork
in it;   where I   planned to spend the rest of my life.  Where we planned to build a  family.

We were evacuated in one of  the worst winters in New Jersey's  history, I think the snow drifts
were over six feet It was extremely difficult to try to find an apartment besides trying  to keep
 sane in our temporary quarters.  Looking back,  I can't believe all  that we did in such a brief
                600 hudson St. 3c  hobok*n nj   07030201-963031
-------
mount of time.  I commend the EPA for their f"»«*«~-* and in particular for Pat Seppi and
Innee Huhn and Jack Harmon who lived through it with us and were there to try to help us.

After moving, an unusual move considering the circumstances; a home, a studio and much of
my belonging's to storage, fcontinue to go to storage a few times a month and just trying to
make do with whatever we have. I must still teU you of the difficult situation  we are in.  It it
itnnge but a reality about health is sinking in and instead of running on adrenaline in order to
function, as I have been for the past 19 months.  I am realizing that I must deal with all of
this.  You see I have been spending quite a bit of energy on trying to forget and pretend this
never really happened. However, finally, it is quite clear that the fears we have had may be
becoming reality.  Stephen is having kidney problems, I am having short term memory
problems and I am seeing Ezra's shake being related to his nervous system.

I have come to terms with never returning to the building and that the responsible solution is to
remove it from the community. This recommendation will help to bring closure to this
nightmare or lets say. one part of it.  The  permanent relocation will help to bring stability and
security in some ways to my family.  Not having these things for almost two years has
certainly created some serious psychological and emotional problems in my family , which I
hope this decision  will help to heal.
 Sincerely,
       Bocchino and on behalf of Ezra Keough
               600 Hudson St. 3c  hobok«n nj   07030201-963031
-------
16 July 1997

EPA Hearing RE: 722 Grand St, Hoboken NJ

To whom it may concern:

I strongly support the concept of building reuse as well as organizing long term work/live
spaces for artists and have been very troubled by the troubles at 722 Grand Street.

The media  has provided only spotty facts on the subject leaving one to get much of their
information on the street. I have the following comments and questions:

Is the building's mercury levels too high for industrial use?

The artists  and their families have obviously  suffered the most but as the buyers, I  feel
they had the ultimate responsibility to know what they were buying.  Being naive is not
valid. If they did not know to ask, then their lawyers should have asked for them. If the
lawyers did not look into this and protect their clients,  then they are equally liable.  I have
not yet heard any blame put on the shoulders of the lawyers.

Since this entire  affair resulted because of numerous  instances which seemed to fall
through the cracks, blame can be spread all  around. Various government agencies need
to be involved to sort out the mess since the government is also liable for not flagging the
situation in time.

How much  did the seller reveal of the building's history?  How much did they know? They
are certainly responsible to  find out if the building use was going to change, providing
them with a higher sales price.

This was the wrong building, with the wrong  seller and wrong buyers but the idea was a
good one.  I support the idea of the artists being relocated.

I would like the idea of artist work/live spaces to be pursued in Hoboken and not be
avoided because of this mess.
 Thank you for you attention to this matter.  Good luck.
 Yours truly,
  1  V    '
 Hank Forrest
 518 Jefferson Street
 Hoboken NJ  07030
-------
                         128 Grand St.
                         New Milford, NJ 07646
                         July 18, 1997
John Hansen
U.S. Environmental protection Agency
290 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Dear Mr. Hansen:
    On July  16 I was at Hoboken High School and
heard your presentation on the Grand street Mercury
Site. (My son was one of the residents  there.)
EPA1a recommendation that the site be demolished
seemed to make the most sense, in view  of  the fact
that Hoooken wants to keep the site residential and
you couxd never be sure all the mercury was removed.
On behalf of my son and nis family, I want to thank
you for  all  you have done.
                             Sincerely,
                              Henry Keough
-------
John Hansen                                             Eileen Hoffman
Remedial Project Manager                                 600 Hudson Street, Apt. 2A
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency                      Hoboken, NJ  07030
290 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
July 21, 1997

Dear Mr. Hansen,

I  am writing in response to the Focussed Feasibility Study concerning 722 Grand Street.
I  am a former resident of the building. It is a heartbreaking decision to decide to destroy
something you so lovingly created, but I am unequivocally in favor of the decision to
demolish the  building.

To provide you with a brief history, I am an artist who made a commitment to live in the
New York art  world. I spent five years looking for an affordable, suitable home that came
close to my dreams. Grand Street more than exceeded these criteria. I was able to create a
magnificent home and studio with its high ceilings, skylights, sunsets, and long  vistas. The
community we created was a huge contradiction to the isolation of urban life. I felt hopeful
about  starting a family here and continuing my career as an artist.

However, Mercury was discovered in my unit shortly after I moved in. From that moment
on, my life has had an  underlying sense of dread;  I did not know  what was  to become of
my home or hearth. The eviction simply added another level of terror. For me, It brought
up my families connection to the Holocaust; tremendous distrust and a difficulty in being
able to tell that the world was safe.

The fabric of my life has completely changed. My  studio is some distance away from my
home. The balance of art, work and home life I had built has been shattered. I  am torn
between home and studio, It seems I am constantly traveling  between  the two, carrying
half my belongings back and forth. I am seldom home; relaxed time with my husband is
rare. I  find it difficult to work in an isolated studio,  as I am used to having people around
me and miss the easy camaraderie necessary fpr  me to work creatively. Chronically
exhausted, I struggle to hold my life together.
-------
 i add to this pressure, blood tests revealed that I  have five times the safe, legal level of
 ercury in my system. It is difficult to express the terror that living with such a high level of
 xitamination can cause.  I have experienced respiratory problems and short term memory
 ss, and had intense nightmares that are just now  beginning to subside. The far-reaching
 facts of this poisoning have yet to be determined, and thus my plans to start a family
 we been postponed indefinitely: I cannot be assured of the health of my child.

 opite all these concerns, I am aware of how fortunate all the former residents have
 een to have had the EPA come to our assistance. You have challenged big business on
 *hatf of the individual, and for your careful scientific investigation of the building I am
 irateful. Finally, I feel assured that the EPA has come to an educated decision about the
 xiilding.

 feel strongly that the building should  not be remediated for industrial use. I could not, in
dljood conscience, leave the building behind with the potential of damaging other peoples'
stealth as it  has mine. This risk is not an  acceptable solution. It was not alright for us to
yi!)e subjected to that poison and it is not alright to  leave ft behind for someone else. I am"
 erribly saddened to say this, but I want  to see the building demolished.

 ; need to start putting attention on rebuilding my life. I and the other former residents
 need to make a clean break from this sad experience and  get on with our lives.

 ilhank you for your attention to this matter.

 Sincerely,
 Eileen Hoffman
-------
John Hansen                                                  Robert Vichnis
Remedial Project Manager                                     600 Hudson Street, Apt.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency                          Hoboken, NJ 07030
290 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866

July 21, 1997

Dear Mr. Hansen,

With the release of the EPA Focussed Feasibility Study I cautiously hope that this nightmare
will soon be coming to an end. My wife and I are former residents of 722 Grand Street. This
was a dream that did indeed rum into a nightmare. After searching five years for an ideal
home that combined plentiful living/working space, a good location and a close community
I was thrilled to join this project. The goal was to rum a dead factory on the edge of Hobokej
into a vibrant center of life for the community. Pouring our energies and life savings into
years of labor, attending countless meetings in the unheated basement, speaking with innu-
merable public officials, and passing every sort of inspection (local, federal, environmental),
we had finally made this dream a reality. This was  where I intended to spend the rest ofTny
life.

But this dream was not to come to fruition; in what should have been the final hours of this
long project, mercury was discovered under the floorboards of one unit and ultimately
throughout the building. A massive spiraling down followed. Just as the mercury had seepe
into the cracks of this building, my hopes now seeped out. My  home and body were contam
nated; my long-term plans, a shambles.

I now live continually with the fear of what this mercury has done to my body. I still experienc
symptoms from  the contamination: most prominently, respiratory problems, short-term
memory loss, and sleep and vision disorders. I am  frightened about my future health, not
only for next year, but twenty years hence.
 Mentally and emotionally this has been a devastating experience. Directly after the evacuatioi
 the stress and trauma were so intense that I could hardly function and  was unable to work f<
 six months. I also suffered from chest pains. I had no control over my life. This debacle has
 also created great stress in my marriage to the point where my wife and I are now seeing a
 marriage counselor. The trauma of this experience—the discovery of the mercury, that
 moment I learned my body was poisoned, the invasion of countless strangers from innumerable
 governmental agencies, the evacuation during the  worst blizzard in New Jersey history, beirv
 homeless—still sits with me.

 Now a year and a half later I  am still living out of boxes in a temporary location and do not
 know when I will be able to say that this saga has  come to an end. Most of my belongings an
 in storage and in a certain sense one could say that my life is, too. I cannot make plans or
 have dreams for my future. Due to the stress and uncertainty, I have not been able to produci
 art for  a year and a half. Furthermore, I had wanted to start a family in Grand Street. Thus ha;
 been put on indefinite hold. Both my wife and I  were highly contaminated by the mercury:!
 had almost six times of what  is considered  the safe level for adults. Fears of the effects of this
-------
 ontamination and of our uncertain future have caused us to wait, and in light of both our
 ges, our chances may be slipping away forever.

 jow with the release of this Focussed Feasibility Study and the EPA-preferred alternative of
 lemolition and permanent relocation, I find myself full of hope again. I firmly support this
decision and ask that it be carried out with due speed. If only due to the potential for fire,
 lemolition is the only answer. I applaud the EPA for the extensive scientific research it has
conducted at 722 Grand Street. While waiting this past year and a half has been nerve-
 vracking, the methodical steps the EPA has taken to collect this data has made this wait more
 nanageable, and with the release of this detailed study, more understandable. I also want to
 hank the EPA for all the efforts it has made on our behalf. Our situation is a prime example
of the importance of the Superfund.

Sincerely,

 <&
 Robert Vichnis
-------
                                                    Tova Back and Zak Friedman
                                               P O.Box 930, Hoboken, NJ 07030
                                        Tel:  201-420-4804 •  Fax:  201-420-4805
                                               E-mail:  petrocontrol@earthlirtk net
                                                                  July 25,1997
Mr. John Hansen,
Remedial Project Manager USEPA-Region II
Emergency and  Remedial Response Division
New York, NY 10007-1866
                                         Re: Hoboken Grand Street Mercury Site
Dear Mr. Hansen,
As a family that was evacuated from the contaminated building at 722 Grand Street,
Hoboken NJ. we would like to put on record how appreciative we are of EPA's work
throughout this disaster.

We joined the Grand Street Artists partnership to buy this building in good faith, with
the intention of developing one of the units of the building (5B) as a live and work
space, suitable for our needs.  We thought we were creating a  home and a
community to live in.   We invested our life savings plus many long hours of work,
buying the property and developing our unit, which came out breathtakingly beautiful

When mercury was discovered in the building and forced our evacuation, we were
financially and emotionally devastated  We lost the resilience to recover from the
shock of losing the home we worked so hard to build.

We cannot overemphasize how helpful the EPA support has been to us. Our
temporary accommodations,  imperfect as they were, have given us  an  anchor and
permitted life to go on.  If not for that help we would have been homeless and on the
streets.

Now  the EPA has made a recommendation in favor of remediating the  Grand Street
building and permanently relocating the residents.   We very much hope that the EPA
will go through with this recommendation as soon as possible.  Only then can we put
this unfortunate event behind us.

We intend to continue to live in the City of Hoboken, and as Hcboken citizens we
would very much like to see  the building site cleaned up and made safe.
-------
Please do keep on the good work.  We hope that future legislation would prevent such
unfortunate and unnecessary disasters from ever taking place again.

Sincerely,
Tova Beck-Friedman & Zak Friedman
Former residents of
722 Grand Street
apt: 5B
Hoboken, NJ
-------
NAN'CYJESSUP
Food Consultant _ 299 Pavonia
                                                     Jersey City, NJ o?3(
                                              July 19, 1997


 John Hansen
 Remedial Project Manager
 U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
 290 Broadway, 19th Floor
 New York, New York  10007-1866

 Dear Johni

      It is with great relief that I read the E.P.A.'s Superfund
 Proposed Plan for the Grand Street Mercury Site.  The release
 of this report signals, I hope, an end to what has thus far been
 an agonizing 18 months.

      We spent two years building our dream home.  Two years of
 scrimping, borrowing, using every penny we had to build a home
 that would meet our every need.  Our lives were put on hold,
 friends and family neglected, while we struggled to convert a
 derelict factory building into an inviting nest full of light
 and air. All of the stress and construction-related tension ended
 the day we moved in.  That was the pay-off.  We were the happiest
 we had ever been.  Not only did we have a wonderful home, but we
 also had neighbors, friends who became family, sharing the same
 interests and goals.

      This dream existence came to a 'crashing halt when we were
 forcibly evacuated by government and local health agencies on
 January  11, 1996.  Since that day life has become a nightmare.
 We have  moved three times in the past year, initially with only
 those belongings that would fit in a plastic garbage bag.  Most
 of our possessions are in storage and our lives are on hold.  The
 quality  of life we sought is gone.  In its place is depression,
 anxiety  about the future, and fears for our health.  It is bad
 enough losing one's home, but is worse to have to relive the
 experience over and over again when interviewed by the press,  our
 lawyers  and government.  I cannot wait for the day when the
 topic of conversation among friends and strangers will no longer
 revolve  around  "the mrecury building."

      What is most upsetting however, is that we, the victims
 in this  disaster, are perceived in some quarters as criminals,
 responsible  for the mercury problem, and that we should bear
 the  costs of cleaning it up.'  Well, let me tell you, I have
-------
NANCY JESSUP

Food Consultant299 Ptvonia Artnu.,  Apt.  1-10A
                                                    Jersey CJry. NJ 07302



 /Hansen, page 2,




 gone into debt cleaning the mercury out of  a  building that
 was sold to us supposedly  MERCURY FRSE1  We  would, none  of  us,
 ever have considered buying a  toxin-soaked  building to live  in.
 We relied on the assurance of  the  state government, our lawyers
 and environmental experts that the building was  clean.  Now, as
 it turns out, nothing could be farther from the  truth.

     I  am weary of this process.   I feel like I've been poked,
 jabbed, probed, pinched, tweaked,  examined  and cross-examined
 endlessly.  Can't we please stop  the debate?   Let us  have some
 closure and put this all behind us.  Our ordeal  continues as
 long as we remain displaced.   Please,  help  us to rebuild  our
 lives.
                                               Sincerely,
                                               Nancy <7essup
                                               Grand Street
                                               Artists  Partnership
                                               Unit 5-C
-------
                                  Nora Jacobson
                              38 Kendall Station Road
                             Norwich, Vermont 05055
July 27, 1997

John Hansen
Remedial Project Manager
US  Environmental Protection Agency
290  Broadway, 19* floor
New York, NY 10007-1866

Dear Mr Hansen,

       1 was unable to attend the hearing on July 16th concerning the Grand Street
Mercury Site, but as one of the displaced residents, I wanted to let my feelings known
concerning the proposed plan

       First of all, I would like to express appreciation for the EPA s  responsiveness
and sensitivity to our needs Although our predicament is terrible, given the amount of
time, work, love and money we invested in making that building our home, we have been
well treated by the Environmental Protection Agency.

       My own feelings about the proposed plan are this: I wish that the building could
be remedied and that we could (those who wanted to) move back into the building.
However I understand that it is unclear that the building could ever be fully cleaned, at
least to the extent required for residential use and that if we did move back in, and if
mercury were detected later on, we would once again be forced to move. I don't want to
go through that again  It was a terrible disruption in our lives.

       Consequently, it is with regret that I find myself going  along with the EPA's
preferred  remedy  I feel disgusted by the huge waste of  resources, but I m relieved that
the EPA, which deemed it necessary to evict us, is also taking responsibility for relocating
us

       Thank you for the opportunity to express my feelings

                     Sincerely,
                     Nora Jacobson
-------
         Environment Committee ofHoboken
                                  P.O.BoxM252
                               Hoboken, NJ  07030
                                                                            July 31, 1997
Mr. John Hansen
Remedial Project Manager
US Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway, 19* Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
Dear Mr. Hansen,

I attended the public meeting of the Grand Street Mercury site on Wednesday, July 16, 1997 but was
unable to bear the oppressive beat waiting for my turn to speak.

1 thought the EPA's presentation was very well done and specific. My organization, the Environment
Committee ofHoboken, sent out over 1 25 postcards to our mailing list informing members about the
meeting. We also posted flyers made up by Sabrina Boccino at our Farmers' Market on Tuesday.  We
would be happy to help disseminate any other information at the market in the future.

The Environment Committee ofHoboken enthusiastically  supports the EPA's preferred alternative to
permanently relocate the residents and demolish the building. We see this solution as the only acceptable
course of action for the condo residents and the City ofHoboken. It is sobering to realize that we have
lived with this undetected hazard in our midst for so long.

 We sincerely appreciate the accelerated process the EPA has afforded this site.  We encourage and believe
your agency will continue fast tracking this clean up. While we understand you have procedures to be
followed, our interest is to have this danger eradicated as soon as possible. If mere is any help we can
provide to that end, we would be happy to do so.
 Sincerely yours,
 Donna Cahill
 President, Environment Committee ofHoboken
-------
GEORGE N. PAPPAS
   ATTORNEY AT LAW
     201 659-7040
  FAX 201 659-1007
    53 NEWARK STREET
 HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY 07030


August 1, 1997
John F. Hanson, EPA Project  Manager
United States Environmental  Protection Agency
Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866

     Re:  Eugenio Notaro
          725 Adams Street,  Hoboken,  NJ 07030

Dear Mr. Hanson:

     Following  up  on  our  telephone  conversation,  this  office
represents Eugenio  Notaro, owner of  the  above  property,  which is
adjacent to  the former GE Mercury  Lamp  Factory  at  720-732  Grand
Street.   I  have had  an opportunity  to review your July  9,  1997
letter, the April 4, 1996 Sampling Trip Report, pertinent portions
of the April 19, 1997  Final  Baseline  Human Health Risk Assessment
for the Grand  Street  site, the 35 page brochure  prepared for the
Grand Street mercury  site  public  meeting on July 16, 1997 and the
2 page ATSDR mercury  information  sheet.

     Putting aside the question of dermal absorption, you note that
four of  the samples  taken  exceeded  the  EPA soil  borne mercury
ingestion limit of 23 mg per kilogram.  Mr. Notaro has not let his
two young children play in  the  backyard since  oil contamination was
discovered in  the  factory parking lot in 1994.   I  think you can
understand that he  will  continue  to  prevent  his  children from
playing  in  the backyard  as a result  of the April  mercury test
results.   Averaging  is simply  not   meaningful  when it  comes to
children.

     It has  also  come to  our  attention that  the General Electric
Company is opposing your first  remediation choice  of demolition and
removal of the former  factory building and  mercury  on the site.
Thus, resolution  of the problem  will  likely exceed  the two year
remedial estimate in the informational  brochure distributed  at the
meeting.

     It  is  my  client's  understanding  that the  condominium unit
owners are being offered a buy-out of their interest under the
proposal.  My client  desires to be  included in such buy-out.
-------
;oRGEN. PAPPAS
 ATTORNEY AT LAW
   Mr. John F. Hanson,  EPA Project Manager                    Page  2
   August 1,  1997


  M^H|^^ He should not have to continue to endure the uncertain
   errectof the admitted contamination of his property as well as the
   proposed factory remediation on his children and himself.


                                      Very truly yours,
   GNPrsh

   cc:   Eugenio Notaro
-------
-------
-------
  mw
               >a4
                   .....



                                      * r7*i
-wjtAimlt 4^0 kh m*, fat
   U^Cl ^C^O»^ /fu^^fA.~f~/ 6-n W.




-------
                                                            8/3/97
Mr. John Hansen, Remedial Project Manager
U.S..Environmental Protection Agency
290 Brotdvty, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
Dear Mi. Haruen,

        After reading the Supexfund Proposed Plan for the Grind Street Mercury Site, I wanted to
makt two comments.

        First, I agree widi me proposed solution, Alternative 5 (Demolition of Building /
Permanent Relocation of Building Residents / Soil Remediation). This alternative seems me most
likely to have positive and known results.

        If mother alternative for cledh-up is selected, and the approach eliminates the threat to the
health of any person who will work in or near the building, that is fine But, the key {mint of my
concern, is that the former rtndentt art relocated and provided a final settlement in the qttickett
way pottible. Only this will this allow the  families that have been living in a Temporary situation for
two years to move on with dieir lives and put the unfortunate and frustrating situation behind them.
Making a settlement as quickly as possible  also seems die most cost effective approach. For me
agency to pay for temporary living any longer, when it appears a longterm settlement will not include
moving back into me building, seems a waste of funds.

        Whichever mercury clean-up solution is chosen, please make the final settlement of the
tenants your first priority.
                                                            Sincerely,
                                                            Kim Smitfi
                                     Kittk  *    *
                                                     ,   mm
-------
                                                                   . 32/89
                   HELLRING LINDEMAN GOLDSTEIN & SIEGAI

     MCiLtiMO uti«-i»ti>              COtTXSElXOHS A.T
JOCL o.
,/CNATNAW u OO^Of TCI*
•AVV M. Cvt"C*»CK*
JAMtS A SCAl^OMC*
Nic«»tw cocao*'
      otc
     §. H»N«*                     Aucrust  4.  1997
 ICHABO H.CO»COW                    n**s|uj>w  ^/  *»^/^

     V»nro£ •                                                 "em**. MO je-tr- OJIOM
                                                                (100 «n-»oto
      L
      LSTtlN*
    $.
WAM* t. MOCOSWOK* --_-  _. w KVTTS
•AC«etN.o*v,e$ON*   VIA  FAX AND
    t «ADC>£O*
     '. i.n»cw.Tit   jjr.  John Hansen, Remedial  Project Manager
              U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
              29°  Broadway -  19th Floor
              New  York, New York 10007-1866
              Re:  Grand Street Mercury  Site.  Hoboken. New Jersey
                    COMMENTS OF DAVID  P.  PASCALS
                    IN RESPONSE TO THE JULY 19>7
                    FOCU88ED FEASIBILITY  STUDY AND PROPOSED PLAN
              Dear Mr. Hansen:
              We submit the following  comments on behalf  of  David
              P-  Pascale, a former owner  of the property  at  720-
              732 Grand Street, Hoboken,  (the "Property")  regard-
              ing the July 1997 Focussed  Feasibility Study and
              Proposed Plan respecting relocation of residents and
              remediation of the Property.1
                   1Mr.  Pascale is not a Potentially Responsible
              Party under CERCLA.   (See  the prior correspondence
              dated January 22, 1997  from  Michael Edelson,  Esq.,
              to Catherine Garypie, Esq.,  annexed.)  This  letter
              is written in Mr. Pascale's  interest as the  owner
              of adjacent property  at 718  Grand Street,  Hoboken,
              and in recognition  that the  current owners and
              General Electric Company (the generator of the
              mercury located at  the  Property)  have sought to
              shift their costs and responsibilities to  him
              through litigation  now  pending in the United
-------
LIKDEXAN OOLDSTZW * SZZGAL

    Mr. John Hansen           -2-        August 4,  1997
    As the Study acknowledges,  "A remedy  is deemed pro-
    tective  [of human health and  the  enviroruaent]  if it
    adequately eliminates,  reduces or controls,  in both
    the short- and long-term,  risks to human health and
    the environment."  (Study at 92.)   Yet the r«cp»-
    mendations studied by the EPA "screened out" any
    proposal which did "...not completely remove bulk
    elemental mercury at the Site."  (Study at 70.)   The
    Study should have included those  alternatives,
    because the Study demonstrates that there exists
    "protective" remedies which adequately reduce  or
    control mercury at the  Property.   (See study at 59-
    64 - Options 7 through  13.)
    By  screening out all  remedies  which  reduce  and  con-
    trol, rather than completely eliminate, bulk mercury
    at  the  site, EPA has  chosen from  a menu of  options
    involving relatively  high costs of remediation,  in  a
    narrow  range (between $3.5 million and $4.3 mil-
    lion) .  However, achieving substantial (but less
    than  complete) removal  and encapsulation—techniques
    the Study acknowledges  are effective—can likely  be
    achieved at fractions of  the proposed costs in  the
    Study and Plan.  This information should be
    developed and presented by EPA before action is
    taken on the current  proposed  Plan.
    States District Court  of  the  District of New
    Jersey.
         We  also must  note at the outset that the
    Study and  Proposed Plan erroneously identify Kr.
    Pascale's  wife, Sherrill  Pascale, as a former
    owner of the Property-  Sherrill Pascale never
    owned the  Property.  She  joined in a Deed con-
    veying the Property to Grand  Street Artists
    Partnership, which was done at the request of such
    partnership's  title company in order to extinguish
    inchoate rights of dower  she  might have otherwise
    been able  to assert.   The back title information
    reflecting that Ms.  Pascale was never in the chain
    of  title was obtained  by  the  Grand Street Artists
    prior to their purchase of the Property and has
    been available to  all  parties to the pending
    litigation, including  General Electric Company.
-------
"^0 4^»
   UKDEMAN OOLDSTZIH * SIEQAL

        Mr. John Hansen          -3-        August 4, 1997
        The ultimate recommendation of the EPA, i.e. demoli-
        tion,  is not only unduly costly but liXely involves
        as much danger to the community as other techniques.
        Demolition assures the release of encapsulated mer-
        cury into the environment.  Other techniques (such
        as washing, vacuuming, etc.) followed by encapsula-
        tion would not involve such risk of release of the
        mercury, may never result in release of the mercury
        into the community, and preserve a historically
        significant structure.
        EPA further assumes that the appropriate remedy in
        this matter involves permanent relocation of the
        former residents.  If permanent relocation is the
        desired option, it nevertheless cannot justify the
        types of costs apparently contemplated (which are
        barely documented in the Study and Plan).  In par-
        ticular, the costs of the "permanent relocation" op-
        tions all result in costs which are greatly out of
        proportion to the value of the Property,  even as
        improved by the former residents, and so appear to
        present a windfall to the former residents.
        Specifically, the former residents invested approxi-
        mately $175,000 per unit for 17 units:  $2,975,00.
        (Study at 105.)  They purchased the Property for
        $1,500,000.  Thus their total fair market value
        should be approximately $4,475,000.  EPA estimates
        the residual value of the Property as a residential
        building at $1,568,500.  (Study at 124.)  If EPA
        adds the value of the same improvements—even with a
        10% increase for inflation or market factors—the
        improvements have a value of less than $4.900,000.
        Thus EPA's total permanent relocation payment  (ex-
        clusive of temporary relocation and moving expenses)
        should be $4,900,000 or less.  However, EPA costs
        this element at $9,915,600 (Study - Table 6-5 at
        129),  more than twice the value.
-------
KZLLXINO LINDEMAK OOLDSTZW * SHOAL

           Mr.  John Han* en          -4-        August 4, 1997
           The assumptions and techniques by which EPA cones to
           its estimated payment of $9,915,600 for this element
           must be questioned.  EPA claims to base it upon a
           confidential appraisals (Study at 123-124), which we
           have not had the opportunity to see.
           EPA will of course seek to shift the costs to Poten-
           tially Responsible Parties.  EPA must exercise care,
           however, in selecting the appropriate remedy or
           seeking to impose costs on the allegedly responsible
           parties.  Common sense bars providing a permanent
           relocation at a cost so disproportionate to the
           value of the former dwellings.
           The proposed remedy here has not been adequately
           studied or shown necessary or cost-effective.  EPA
           has failed to study other less-costly techniques
           which appear to be adequately protective of human
           health and environment, meet all applicable relevant
           or appropriate requirements (ARARs),  provide long-
           term effectiveness, may be less risky tha'n the
           proposed demolition strategy,  can be accomplished
           far more quickly and will likely cost much less.
           Until EPA performs such a study, it  should not
           proceed with the current proposed Plan.   EPA has
           secured support of former residents  and  others by
           holding out a permanent relocation proposal premised
           on a windfall recovery for the former residents far
           out of proportion to any reasonable  estimate of
           relocation costs.
                *Indeed,  this  smacks of providing a bonanza
           to many former residents,  who undertook  their own
           independent investigations prior to purchase and
           were by their own admission aware of the presence
           of mercury as early as two occasions in  1993 and
           another occasion in 1994 before most of  the
           renovation costs were incurred (Study at 6), and
           so could have avoided their alleged capital costs
           and the need for relocation through their own
           exercise of care.
-------
jrELLRIHO LJVDEMAW OCIDSTdX * SEEOAA

          Mr.  John Hansan          -5-        August 4, 1997
           From  the  information now available,  Mr. Pascale sug-
           gests that EPA consider providing permanent reloca-
           tion  at a cost commensurate with the value of the
           former residence*;  reducing bulk mercury at the
           Property  through a  variety of simple, cost-effective
           processes followed  by encapsulation of remaining
           elemental mercury/  and restoration of the building
           to productive commercial use.
                               Respectfully yours,

                               HELLRING LINDEMAN GOLDSTEIN
                                & SIEGAL

                                   /  /
                               By:_
                                  MATTHEW E.  MOLOSHOK
           MEM/dm
           cc:  Mr.  David P.  Pascale
-------
OClD
iltARCTDCC
   0. SHA»'»O»
CHAM I. HOW «*
CHA*OK
 )HN A
 IDAM L
 IUCtt.CTTCI»KAt.*
 \rrtic* I notOSMQ^
 iCxtL N. OAVIOSOM *
 tMAWOCL*
 VION HAAC1SO*
 MM JAMC JtUN*
 ICA,$AV*CC4
 »C»T I.
 t»n t
                 HEULRINO LINDEMAN GOLDSTEIN & SIEGAL

                           COUNSELLOR! AT LAW
                             January 22, 1997
                                                           OMC aATCWAT CCMTC*

                                                             NCW jCMCv 0»iO*-S3«»
VIA rax
Catherine Garypie,  Esq.
Assistant Regional  Counsel
U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
290 Broadway  -  17th Floor
New York, New York  10007

Re:  Grand  Street Mercury Site
     Hoboken, New Jersey	
           Dear  Ms.  Garypie;
           We  write as attorneys for David  Pascale to advise
           the United States Environmental  Protection Agency
            ("EPA")  that Mr. Pascale is not  in  a position to
           sign the proposed Administrative Order on Consent
            ("AOC")  circulated by the EPA.
           Mr.  Pascale does not have the resources or ability
           to perform the obligations which would be under-
           taken or imposed upon the Potentially Responsible
           Parties ("PRPs") by the terms of the AOC.
            It  has at all times been David Pascale's  position
            that  he is not a PRP as defined by  42 U.S.C.
            S 9607(a).
            It  is  our understanding that Grand  Street  Artists
            Partnership ("GSAP") put forth two  arguments  for
            the naming of David Pascale as a  PRP.   GSAP argued
            that John J.  Pascale, Sr., David's  father, has
            claimed that David had knowledge  of the prior his-
            tory of the building; to wit, that  it  had  once
            been used for the manufacture of  mercury vapor
-------
H1UJUXO UKD1MXN GOLDSTEIN * SOWAL


            Catherine Garypi*, E»q.  -2-      January 22, 1997
            lamps.   At the same tine, John Pascale has
            asserted directly to the EPA that no aercury was
            used in the building to his knowledge after he
            purchased it in 1955, and that from and after the
            date- of his purchase, he saw no evidence of and
            had no tanovledge that there was any aercury in the
            building.  Even if John Pascale's allegation that
            David Pascale knew the building had been used
            sometime prior to 1955 for the manufacture of
            mercury vapor lamps/ it would not provide David
            with knowledge of the presence of mercury on or
            about the premises.  In any event, knowledge of
            prior uses of hazardous materials does not make a
            person a PRP under the definition of CERCLA.
            GSAP has further argued that David Pascale is a
            PRP because he was "an owner at the time of
            disposal."  That, argument fails.  See generally
            United States of America v. CDMG Realty Co..  et
            a_l^_, 96 F-3d 706 (3rd Cir. 1996).  Any gradual
            releases of residual mercury do not constitute a
            disposal.  Id.  The only active "disposal" assumed
            by GSAP was that David Pascale, on behalf of
            Quality Tool & Die Co., Inc., arranged for the
            decommissioning of an underground storage tank and
            disposal of contaminated soil.  It is our under-
            standing that the removal and disposal were ac-
            complished in accordance with the requirements and
            regulations of the New Jersey Department of En-
            vironmental Protection and supervised throughout
            by an environmental engineering firm, precluding
            CERCLA liability.  Under those circumstances,
            David Pascale is not "an owner at the time of
            disposal" under CERCLA.  Id.
            By contrast, it is absolutely clear that some if
            not the majority of the partners in GSAP,  as well
            as the partnership itself, meet the definition of
            a PRP under CERCLA.  However, as of the date of
            this letter, they have not been named as PRPs by
            the EPA.
            Notwithstanding the foregoing, and without
            prejudice to the position set forth above, David
            Pascale was prepared to attempt to negotiate an
            appropriate contribution with the other nawed PRPs
            in order to be able to join as a signatory to the
            AOC.
-------
HUJUKO LINDEMAX OOLDSTZW * SHOAL


           Catherine Garypie, Esq.  -3-      January 22,  1997
           It is David Pascale'e position that a meaningful
           AOC requires that all PRPs would have to partici-
           pate, and in particular General Electric Company
           ("GE") Bust assume preeminent responsibility be-
           cause (a) there is no dispute that of the named
           PRPs, GE is the only one responsible for us in?
           mercury on the premises and profiting from that
           use,  (b) GE is the only named PRP with the re-
           sources necessary to perform the obligations that
           would be required under the terms of the AOC, and
           (c) GE is the only PRP with the necessary exper-
           tise and manpower to meaningfully address remedi-
           ation of the site.  We have been advised, however,
           that GE will not sign the AOC.
           For the reasons set  forth above, David Pascale
           cannot consent to  join  in the AOC without the
           participation of GE  and without a realistic
           allocation of responsibilities among all PRPs.
                                            Very truly yours,
           ME/dm
           cc:  Mr. David Pascale
-------
                                        Shun-Yi Chen/Ching-Huang Chung
Aug 6, 1997                             513 Broadway 3A
                                        New York, NY 10012
John Hansen/Catherine  Garypie
Remedial Project  Manager/Assistant Regional Counsel
US Environmental  Protection Agency
290 Broadway  19th Floor
New York, NY  10007-1866

Dear Mr HFtansen  and Ms.Garypie:

     We welcome CPA's  recommendation adopting Alternative S regarding the
Grand Street  Mercury Site.  We believe that EPA has made the most appropriate
decision.

     According  to EPA's letter (Nov.21, 1996), we are eligible to receive
temporary relocation benefits and this benefits is retroactive to the date EPA;
began response  activities at the Grand Street Mercury Site, which is
Jan, 5. 1996.  In the same letter (Nov. 21, 1996), EPA requires that we submit
documentation of payment for housing costs in order to receive the above
benefits. However, unlike other tenants that were relocated by EPA immediately
upon vacated  the mercury site,  we did not relocate to temporary housing untiil
we  received EPA's permission to do so on Nov.21,1996. Since we did not have
sufficient  fund for such temporary housing, we did not seek for such housing
and will not  be able to produce such document to receive reimbursement.

     However, we do have documentation to show that we borrowed mere than
$15,000  in  1996 for our immediate need such as interests and apartment
maintenance,  etc.,(see attachment A) because we were not be able to move
into  the Grand  Street  unit. We hope that this document will meet EPA's
requirement for reimbursement due to our special situation. In addition, we
will  also need  an amount of $21,207 to satisfy the interests payment to our
loan  (see attachment B) so that we will not be foreclose by our creditor.

     We  sincerely hope that EPA will consider that these documents are
satisfactory  to obtain the reimbursement. Furthermore, we urge EPA to
consider  that we are social partners of all other Grand Street Mercury Site's
tenants  so  that we are eligible for permanent relocation benefits We ace the
 first  tenant  (and victim) to report  the contamination of mercury in the Grar.d
Street  Site and were evicted from the unit 5D as early as January 1995. We
suffered the  same frustration and aggravation(if not more) as the other
tenants.  Because of mercury contamination, we were not able to close the
property with the partnership and the bank. EPA should consider this not as
 the reason  to exclude us from the other tenants but a consequence of the
mercury  contamination. We not only were not able to move to our dream house
but also had to carry a big  loan  for our down payment and construction  costs.
To deny  us  the  right as the other tenants will be a devastating blow to us.

      We  hope that you would  consider our reo^iest favorable and look for  to
hearing  from you  at your earliest convenience.

 Sincerely Yours,
 Shun-Yi Chen/Ching-Huang Chung
-------
Ai,».io                     PROMISSORY NOTE        ^             ^^
R293-04


J 10.000.00 dollars                                             Dated: Novcanbcr 18,1996
principal Amount                                              State of niinotj

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned hereby jointly ami severally promise to pay to the order of

Fti-Ling LL      . _£.                 the sum of
Dollars (510.000.00 ~~   ). together with interest thereon K the rate of 7.3% per annum on the unpaid balance. Slid sum shall be
pad inlhe manner following:

The principal and intexes before November 30,1997

All payments shall be first applied to interest and the balance to principal. This note may be prepaid, at any time, in whole or in part.
without penalty. All prepayments shall be applied in reverse order of maturity.

This noie~shaH at the option of any holder hereof be immediately due and payable upon the failure to make
»y payment due hereundcr withiii_3Q.days of in due date.

hi (he event this note shall be in default, and placed with an attorney for coDection. then the undersigned agree to pay an reasonable
attorney fees and costs of collection. Payments not made within five (S) days of due iic shaO be subject to a late charge of iQfLuf
said payment. All payments hereundcr dull be made to such address as may from time 10 time be designated by any holder hereof.

The undersigned and ail other parties to ihis note, whether as endorsers, guarantors or sureties, agree to remain fuOy bound ^rt-_-vJir
and this note shall be fully paid and waive demand, presentment and pretest and aD notices thereto and former agree to rc-T.lTn •>;>. - J.
notwithstanding any extension, renewal, modification. Barter, or other indulgence by any bolder or upon the discharge or release o:
any obligor hereunder or to this note, or upon the exchange, substitution, or release of any collateral gamed as security for ihti n j-._-.
No modification or indulgence by any holder hereof shall be binding unless in writing; and any indulgence on any one occasion  >h_:
not be an indulgence for any otherer future occasion. Any modification or change of terms, hereunder granted by any bolder hereof.
shad be valid and binding upon rrr** of the undesigned, notwithstanding the acknowledgment of any of the undersigned. ar«i each c:
the undersigned does hereby irrevocably grant to each of the others a power of attorney to enter into any such modification on their
behalf. The rights of any bolder hereof shall be cumulative and not necessarily successive. This note shall take effect as a sealed
instrument and shall be construed, governed and enforced in accordance with the bws of the State first appearing at the head of th:>
     The undersigned hereby execute this note as principals and not as sureties.
 Signed In the presence of:
 Witness	<^   3ocro*>J   .{*SS'^•^/st&Z^r S_. '
                                                   /Shun-Yi
 Witness	Borrower	•  •	;	

.GUARANTY

 '.Vc the undersigned jointly and severally guaranty the prompt and punc:ual paymc::; of all moneys due under the aforesc; 3 r.cii
 ijrcc to renuin bound until fully paid.
h the presence of:/* /• j
K f 	 — -*
W«ncs> £ •*— * *
Ken Yzr.g
Witness
Ctunniur "fTOsL^s ~~ — ^
/
Guarantor
^/>.-
tobajL,
 E  2 Legal  Forms.  Before you  use  this  form,  read  it,  fin  in all  blanks, and make  whatever
 changes   are  necessary  to  your  particular  transaction,  consult  a  lawyer  if  you  doubt  ;r-
 lorm's  fitness   for  your  purpcse  and  use.  E-Z  legal  Forms  and  the  retailer  make   no
 representation  or  warranty,  eapress   or  implied,   with   respect  to  the  merchantability   cf
 'orm  tor  an  intended   use  or  purpose.
-------
                                                                  ii
     7-
                                               &«*
            CHU-SHAN TANG
          41 -*0 UNION ST.. APT. 160
            FLUSHING. NY  U35S
    UNITED NATIONS FEDERAL CfiEDJT UNION
                           ••oj
                           • Koe
                           IQDI
WLMO
          iU80«:o a 30030

C55i
-------
LOAN NO.    LOAN AMOUNT
FROM
TO
                                                         INTEREST PAD
                                              INTEftCSTDlC
1,
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
5.000.00
20,000.00
5,000.00
37.000.00
5,000.00
3,000.00
40,000.00
9,000.00
( 7/17/95
10,000.00
10,000.00
2,000.00
5,000.00
10,000.00
10,000.00
5,000.00
10,000.00
2/23/93
1/01/97
5/27/93
1/01/97
6/11 /93
1/01/97
7/16/93
1/01/97
8/23/93
1/Ot /97
3/07/94
1/01/97
5/09/94
1 /0V 97
5/10/94
Paid back nine
5/ 13/94
1/01/97
11 /01 /94
l/Ot/97
11/3/94
1/01/97
1/17/95
1 /Ot/97
5/03/95
I/Of /97
12/11 /95
1/01/97
9/ 11 /96
1/01/97
11 / 29 / 96
1/01/97
12/31/96
7 / 31/ 97
12/31/96
7 /3V 97
12/31/96
7 / 31/ 97
12/31/96
7/31/97
12/31/96
7/31/97
12/31 /96
7/31/97
12/31 /96
7/31/97
7/17/95
thousand doltars loan
12/31 /96
7/31/97
12/31 /96
7 /31/97
12/31/96
7 /31/97
12/31 /96
7/31/97
12/31 /96
7/31 /97
12/31 /96
7/3V97
12/31/96
7/3t/97
12/31/96
7/31 /97


1. 463.00 ( 1/22/97)
3,000.00 ( 3/25/96 )
1.675.00(5/28/96)
2.758.00(1/18/97)
1. 367.00 ( 1/22/97)
743.00 ( 1/14/97 )

1, 000.00 ( 7/17/95)
plus one thousand dollars
2,098.00 ( 1/22/97 )
1,700.00(3/15/97)

761.00(3/15/97)
1 ,287.00 ( 1/22/97)
784.00(2/26/97)
109.00(3/15/97)

1.599.00
288.71
2.362.00
978-34
218.75
1,618.75
218.75
f3f.25
8,536.00
2,123.45
interest )
437.50
437.50
340.00
102.38
218.75
437.50
437.50
218.75
62.50
440. .23
            177,000.00
                         18,745.00
                                 21,207.61
-------
          tSt-LASiJ/K^.
                                                          /?<-^.  r, /? fp
                       -£-*~»-*_-d£^x'
                              X/ J
               //_ e 'i c < t \
7^
-------
                                  Lucia Boochlno
                                  109 Tesler Way
                                   Hillsdale, N.J. 07642

                                   August 13, 1997
     Hans en
RaneJi&l Project Mgr.
U.S Environmental Igenor
290 Broadway
Hew York, N.T. 10007-1866

I am writing this letter to express my deep concern for the health, welfare
and future of my daughter Serena Bocchlno, her husband Stephen Keough,
so n Ezra and future  children.
Serena and Stephen  feuilt their hone— a living  space for the family and
a studio  space for Serena, a professional painter* They  celebrated
their first  Christmas in the new home.
Shortly after, nercury was discovered in  one  of the lofts. Serena, Stephen
and Ezra were forced  to move out. Their health was in great Jeopardy.

My daughter, husband  and child cane to live in ny home inflil'lsdale !'.J.
During that  terrible  vinter of '95  • I saw the daily stress and
strain they  endured.  To this day they are still enduring  trenendous
daily pressures.

I strongly  support  the EFA's recorxiendation to demolish the building
At 722 Grand Street and decontamination of the entire area in order
to insure  safety and health of the Hoboken residents.
                                            Sincerely,
-------
WSTRlCT S
                           HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
                                 BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS
                                     ADMINISTRATION ANNEX
                            5*7 PAVONIAAVENUE-JERSEYCITY. N.J. OTBOS
                                         ZO1-79S-6OO!
                                       FAX - 2OI-217-OAO*
                                            August 18,  1997
      Mr. John Hansen, Remedial Project Manager
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      290 Broadway - 19th Floor
      New York, New York 10007-1866

      Dear Mr. Hansen;

            At their Thursday, August 14 regularly scheduled meeting, the Hudson County Board of
      Chosen Freeholders heard the prepared statement of Curtis Crystal, who formally represented the
      Grand Street Artists Partnership of Hoboken.

            The Freeholder Board adopted Resolution #23 unanimously by those present, which gives
      support to the stand of the Grand Street Artists Partnership and urges the U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency to  choose their own recommendation: Alternative 5, Demolition and
      Permanent Relocation of All Residents.

            A copy, with raised Freeholder seal, is enclosed for your formal records.
                                            Sincerely,
                                            Maurite Fhzgibbon;
                                            Chairperson
                                                           &—
     Enclosure
     c: Stephen Keough, for the Grand Street Artists Partnership
-------
                   BOARD OF CHOSEN  FREEHOLDERS
                            COUNTY OF  HUDSON

                          RESOLUTION
 No.  404-8-1997
On Motion  of Freeholder Board as a whole
 Seconded  by Freeholder	
                        RESOLUTION REQUESTING SWIFT ACTON
             ON THE PART OF THE ULS. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                    IN THE MATTER OF 722 GRAND STREET, HOBOKEN
        WHEREAS, in December, 1995, the City of Hobokea learned of mercury contamination
  existing on die premises of 722 Grand Street, a residential building housing 17 families; and

        WHEREAS, the families were evacuated from die premises in early January, 1996; and

        WHEREAS, die former residents of 722 Grand Street have had to endure multiple severe
  hardships attributable to rheai misfortune for rhe past 18 fflnnrtis, including exposure to
  mercury, temporary housing, emotional distress, financial constraints and uncenainry atom the
  future; and

        WHEREAS, die United States Environmental Protection Agency has jurisdiction over dus
  matter and is conducting a focused study to determine what course of arrinn should be taken
  wiih regard to the contaminated site; mid

        WHEREAS, die former residents of 722 Grand Street have manifested die desire for swift
  action from, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and

        WHEREAS, die rite of 722 Grand Street is, and shall continue to be, viewed negatively
  by die public because of its mercury contamination.

        NOW, THEREFORE, BE tT RESOLVED by die Board of Cbosen Freeholders of die Counry
  of Hudson, than

        1. This Board, along widi County Executive Robert C Janiszewski, cafls upon die U.S.
  Environmental Protection Agency to expediently resolve die issue of permanent relocation of all
  ri-nanrt and ro r-aVl for d»e demolition or removal of 722 Grand Street, Hoboken and die
  environmental restoration of ic land.

        2. This Board, along widi County Executive Robert C Janiszewski, recognizes die  hard
  work, along with the extreme personal hardship, diat each of the 17 fiitmlirs has experienced,
  and extends its erapadiy for the loss of personal property, time, construction effort and
  monetary contribution, as well as die  addition of much aggravation and uncenainry in cheer
  daily lives.

        3, This resolution *MI take effect immediately.
    It is hereby cerrifial dial at a regular meeting of die  Board  of Freeholders  of die
County of Hudson  held on the/^Otf day tfd*";^-**'  A_D. 1997. die foregoing
resolution  was adopted  with  7  members  voting in die affirmative and ^  in die
negative.
-------
Memojrom
           Arnold J. Hoffman
                              199"
         ^/•StO*'
 j*t*~,
-V~Y~~-
  /4&~<~~*i>
-------
August 30,1997

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway, 19 th Floor
New York, New York 10007-1866

Attention: Mr. John Hansen, Remedial Project Manager

Reference: Grand St. Mercury Site, Hoboken. NJ.

Dear John,

I have reviewed: the Focused Feasibility Study, the Risk Assessment, the Proposed Plan, and
the other supporting  documentation made available to me at the Hoboken Library. I support
the USEPA recommended Alternative 5,Demolition of the Building/Permanant Relocation of
the Building Residents/Soil Sampling,Excavation, and Offsite Disposal/Groundwater Sampling
and Analysis as the preferred method  of dealing with  this site.

As you are aware I am a former resident of 722 Grand Street.  My wife and I have spent an
extraordinary amount of time developing this building into a home for our family. We had
planned to consolidate this space into  a home with a artist's studio where we could raise our
children while my wife could persue her carrer as a artist. Please be aware this was a long
anticipated dream of ours not an idea  that we came up with in  1993. My wife is a second
generation artist, she has first hand knowledge of the  dificulties encountered by a  woman
juggling the roles of wife, mother and artist.

For me the words  "Grand  Street" used to conjour up  wonderful memories of my childhood
spent at 128 Grand Street, New Milford, New Jersey. Currently these words only evoke
feelings associated with a nightmare.

Please find enclosed photographs taken one December morning late in 1995 when the USEPA
arrived in our home to measure for mercury contamination. I was on my way out for work and
my 8 month old son Ezra was eating breakfast. These photos call to  mind a speech given by
President Clinton during his reelection campiagn which he vowed that no child  should grow
up with a hazardous waste site near his home. Well my son spent his first 8 months living right
in the middle of one.

Please proceed  with all due haste to the Record of Decision based upon Alternate 5 so my
family and I  may get on with our lives and allow this nightmare to become a distant memory.
 Best Regards
       Keough
 cc President William Clinton
   Vice President Albert Gore
-------
-------
 August 30,1997

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 290 Broadway, 19 th Floor
 New York, New York 10007-1866

 Attention: Mr. John Hansen, Remedial Project Manager

 Reference: Grand St. Mercury Site, Hoboken. NJ.

 Dear John,

 I have reviewed: the Focused Feasibility Study, the Risk Assessment, the Proposed Plan, and
 the other supporting documentation made available to me at the Hoboken Library. I support
 the USEPA recommended Alternative 5,Demolition of the Building/Permanant Relocation of
 the Building Residents/Soil Sampling,Excavation, and Offsite Disposal/Groundwater Sampling
 and Analysis as the preferred method of dealing with this site,

 As you are aware I am a former resident of 722 Grand Street. My wife and I have spent an
 extraordinary amount of time developing this building into a home for our family. We had
 planned to consolidate this space into a home with a artist's studio where we could raise our
 children while my wife could persue her carrer as a artist Please be aware this was a long
 anticipated dream of ours not an idea that we came up with in 1993. My wife is a second
 generation artist, she has first hand knowledge of the dificulties encountered by a  woman
 juggling the roles of wife, mother and artist.

 For me the words "Grand Street" used to conjour up wonderful memories of my childhood
 spent at 128 Grand Street, New Milford, New Jersey. Currently these words only evoke
 feelings associated with a nightmare.

 Please find enclosed photographs taken one December morning late in 1995 when the USEPA
 arrived in our home to measure for mercury contamination. I was on my way out for work and
 ray 8 month old son Ezra was eating breakfast. These photos call to mind a speech given by
 President Clinton during his reelection campiagn which he vowed that no child should grow
 up with a hazardous waste site  near his home. Well my son spent his first 8 months living right
 in die middle of one.

 Please proceed with all due haste to the Record of Decision based upon Alternate 5 so my
 family and I may get on with our lives and allow this nightmare to become a distant memory.
Best Regards
Stephen Keough
cc President William Clinton
   Vice President Albert Gore
-------
                                  Mark Graham
                                1026 Hudson Street
                                Hoboken, NJ 07030
                                   201-792-4037
John Hansen                                                     September 1,1997
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA
290 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
RE:   Public Comment
      Grand Street Mercury Site, Hoboken, NJ


Dear John:

Please find  enclosed comments on the EPA's proposal for the abovementioned site from
my wife and myself, both former residents of this site.

Thanks for  all your work.


Best Regard'
Mark Graham
encl.
-------
                                 Mark Graham
                               1026 Hudson Street
                               Hoboken, NJ 07030
                                  201-792-4037

                    Statement on EPA's Recommendation for
                          722 Grand Street Mercury Site

appreciate this opportunity to speak.

[y wife and I were introduced to this project in  October, 1992, and became actively
ivolved in December of that year.  It took the group of us another nine months to
iccessfully purchase 722 Grand Street,  and then another two and a half years to see
xnpletion on  the horizon.  It was at that point  we discovered we might never reach that
orizon, when we discovered that over half of the residents that had just turned
lemselves inside out on this project had elevated levels of mercury in their bodies.

"Ve succeeded  at Grand Street where other groups in the past, including professional
evelopers, had failed: we took an empty building on a half-empty street in a relatively
ead section of Hoboken, and self developed it into living units that were legally zoned for
rtists to work and live, the first, and still the only ones of their kind.  Within one week
fter we received Final Site Plan Approval from  the City of Hoboken, real estate signs
iading "Lofts  for Sale" and "Lofts for Rent" appeared on buildings across both streets from
ur building. We were the ground breakers in Hoboken, we did it totally on our own,
'ith a tremendous amount of work and a tremendous amount of debt, and we have lost it
II, except  for the debt.

have a sense of pride being part of a group that had the courage and the audacity to take
a a challenge like this.  In this national climate of worshipping the individual, the self-
arters, the risk-takers, we are the quintessential group. We were also exceptionally
lutious. We insisted on documentation assuring us of the safety of this building for
•sidential use. When we received these written assurances, we felt we were safe. In a
reader sense,  that sense of safety is gone, forcefully replaced with an underlying distrust
^d constant stress droning within us.  My wife has developed a cardiac arrhythmia, and
In months after the evacuation, I found myself in the hospital with chest pains  and
•evated blood pressure. My wife was  over three months pregnant during the evacuation,
Nd worry for  the future of our son's health is relentless.
-------
Mark Graham
1026 Hudson Street
Hoboken, NJ 07030

The reality that brings us here tonight never should have happened.  With our caution
during the pre-purchase environmental review of the building, this message of "Unfit for
Human Habitation" was beyond comprehension.  The resulting evacuation was absolute!)
surreal, nightmarish. To me, we appeared as zombies, dragging our two plastic bags of
belongings down through the building, silent and numb with disbelief.  I feel echoes of
this disbelief within our group to this day.

With the emergence of this nightmare, the EPA appeared.  As the group of us were in a
highly agitated state, the EPA acted as a reference point of sanity and reassurance. If it wen
not for the information, assistance, and support the EPA provided, we would have been,
in addition to everything else, homeless and bankrupt. I challenge any of the federal
officials in Washington or any corporate entity involved in this situation who undertake
to lecture on the extreme environmental positions, or the  lack of importance, of the
Environmental Protection Agency to be silent for just a brief time and open their eyes to
the realities of the EPA's contributions to the group of us and to this community.  They
might learn that, if the EPA can be accused of having an agenda, it is essentially to protect
the citizens from being poisoned and to help those who have already been poisoned.

The  EPA has been meticulous and thorough in their handling of the research which
results in this recommendation to demolish our homes.  The realization of this
termination creates an ache that will last a very long time.  But it is the right thing to do,
for us  and for the surrounding community.

For my family and for the group of us, I thank the EPA for its intense efforts on our behalf.
You have contributed to showing us that a sense of stability in our lives is coming in the
future, so that we can move on from this suspended animation in which we find
ourselves.

Thank you.
-------
                                    Myra Graham
                                  1026 Hudson Street
                                  Hoboken, NJ 07030
                                     201-792-4037
RE:   E.P.A.'s Recommendation to Demolish the Building at 722 Grand Street, Hoboken, NJ
For so long now I have felt as if I had been haunted by a pestilent ghost. In a fallacy of vision I
could perceive that ghost to take the form of the building into which my husband and I put so
much of ourselves.  But, although our dream home is contaminated with vapors from, and
the actual liquid  mercury, it is  not the building that has haunted me for this most difficult of
time periods. I am haunted by the hateful greed that allowed someone to sell a building full
of poison to a group of hard working well intended people. It is incomprehensible to me how
any individual could act with such disregard for the welfare of innocent people, and it is
despicable that anyone would allow mothers to take their babies into a place, with the
intention to live there, where they were going to be poison. We were sold a building  full of
poison, and that  sale was made with a smile on the face of that  seller.  The poison that is in the
minds and hearts of a  person who would be able to do such a  thing is worse in effect and
greater in quantity then that which sadly permeates my former home.

Why was that building so saturated with mercury?  The question echoes in my mind,
answerless.  The uses of mercury are probably many. I would never discount its usefulness to
our society. But the abuse of the privilege and responsibility to  use a material that becomes a
potentially life threatening substance is also in question.
                          v
For the past four plus years my husband and I have been involved in this building. We began
the adventure with hopes and realistic concerns. We knew we would do 90% of the work
ourselves. We knew it would be difficult to ask but we asked for some financial help from our
family. We were realistic in  our endeavor.  We worked  hard, really hard.  Each stud was
gratifying, each sanded and sealed floor board held mesmerizing beauty. We were exhausted at
light, but filled with the anticipation of some day living with all the beauty that we ourselves
were creating. It is very well documented the way that the mercury issue evolved.  It  still is so
surreal. What happened should not have ever happened. And the fact that it happened
should sit heavily on certain peoples minds. Contemplating what transpired, and what is
continues is almost numbing.  Maybe I wish I could numb out all that I feel from this travesty
that consumes each  and every  one of my days.  Perhaps then  I would not have the heart
palpitations that continue to scare me, perhaps I would  not have had the eczema that flared up
twice right below my eyes. Maybe if I could ignore the fears concerning my baby's well-being,
my husband's health and my own I  would no longer have the episodes of vertigo. Maybe if I
tad a sense of where I was going to finally create a home for my family the anxiety would
-------
Myra Graham
1026 Hudson St.
Hoboken, NJ

lessen. But what do I do with the thought that plagues me that it could be because of all this
worry fear sadness and anger that I was stressed to such an extent that I lost the baby I carried
for three months. All of the fear, worry, anger, confusion that exists within my body every day
of my life is-a by product of what began as a dream that seemed as if it was going to come true.
Now I live in a nightmare unending unknowns.

We need an end to this disaster.  We need relief from the droning worries and the ever
looming unknowns. Our community needs a safe solution to what I personally have been
told worries many, especially those in the immediate neighborhood. Mothers and Fathers
whose children play in the nearby park have expressed their worry and confusion. People
simply walking by the building have questioned me a number of times about the dangers of
the building. People are scared. And it just is not fair to try to  ignore or steamroll these
peoples' concerns.

We have been through a travesty that I would not wish on anyone. This turbulent time has
gone on far too long. Although it is indescribably heart wrenching to think that our building
should  be demolished it is ultimately very clear that this is the only decision that ensures the
safety of our community. 1 support the E.P.A.'s recommendation for that reason and I hope
and pray that the simultaneous effect of removing the building from where it stands will
remove the ghost of pestilent greed  and irresponsibility from my immediate  life.
-------
Anthony Russo
   Mayor
  September 2, 1997
   City of Hoboken
Board  of Health
    124 Grand Street
   Hoboken, New Jersey
        07030
     Tel: 420-2365
   FAX:(201) 420-7862
Frank S. Sasso. MS.MSW
     Health Officer
  Mr. Richard L. Caspe
  United States Environmental
  Protection Agency
  Region II
  290 Broadway
  New York, NY 10007-1866

  Dear Mr. Caspe:

  Please be advised that I am writing this letter in support of the Hoboken
  City Council's resolution requesting that 720-722 Grand Street, Hoboken,
  New Jersey, be raised due to the imminent health hazard which is being
  caused because of the presence of elemental mercury.

  I have personal first hand knowledge of many of the events that have taken
  place and had the unfortunate but necessary duty of ordering the
  aforementioned building deemed unfit for human habitation and summarily
  vacated.

  Since the closure of the aforesaid building,  I have had numerous queries
  with regard to the safety of 720-722 Grand  Street.  Questions from the
  general public  such as, "is it safe to walk in front of the building?" have
  been raised many times.
-------
Given the fact that the above building conversion was approved (industrial
to residential use) by a government agency, public perception has eroded as
to public trust regarding health and safety statements from my office.

Because of the above, I support the Mayor and the City Council's request
for total demolition and removal of 720-722 Grand Street, Hoboken, New
Jersey, and removal of all other ground contaminants.

If you have any further questions or concerns or would like to meet with me
in person, please contact me at (201)420-2375, and I shall be more than
happy to further assist you.
Sin
Frank S. Sasso, M.S., MSW
Health Officer - City of Hoboken

FSS/dd

cc.  Mayor Anthony Russo
    Director Robert K. Drasheff
    Director George Crimmins
-------
ANTHONY RUSSO 'j* i ^'VJT^ '*.!
                                                   MAYOR
September 2, 1991
                             ^\    '->" ~ -     •
                                CITY  HALL
                        HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
Richard L Caspe
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
290 Broadway
New York, New York 10007-1866

Dear Mr. Caspe:

Please be advised that I am writing this letter in support of the Hoboken City Council's
resolution requesting that 720-722 Grand Street, Hoboken, New Jersey, be raised due to the
imminent health hazard which is being caused because of the presence of elemental mercury.
I support the EPA's alternative No. 5.
                    /Yoursve
                                        rsveryjruly
AR/as
                    Anthony Russo
                    Mayor
-------
                       HUDSON REGIONAL HEALTH COMMISSION
                                    MEADOWVIEW CAMPUS
               595 COUNTY AVENUE, BUILDING 1,  SECAUCUS, NEW JERSEY 07094
                             TEL. (201)223-1133   FAX (201)223-0122
Karen L. Comer. President                                                     Robert Ferraiuolo. Director

                                                            September 2, 1997
        John Hanson
        Remedial Project Manager
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
        290 Broadway, 19th Floor
        New York, New York, 10007-1866
        Mr. Hanson,

        The Hudson Regional Health Commission  (HRHC) respectfully submits the following
        comments with regard to the Superfund Proposed Plan for the Grand Street Mercury
        Site.  The remedial alternatives referenced are as described in the  proposed plan dated
        July, 1997.

        The HRHC  can only support those remedial  alternatives  which in  its view are fully
        protective of the environment, and the health of the building residents,  the public and any
        future occupants.   Since, the presence  of a hazard within the building has  been clearly
        demonstrated along with the existence of a potential  health threat to the  community,
        Alternative 1 is not supported by HRHC.

        Alternatives 2  and 3, present the possibility of remediation of the  building  as means of
        ensuring the safety of future residential occupants.  However, both  options rely upon
        remediation to a specified level of mercury vapor in air, and imply that not all  mercury can
        be removed from the building. The assumption that complete removal of mercury cannot
        be accomplished while leaving the existing building intact is reasonable based on the extent
        of saturation of building components with mercury which has been found at the  site to
        date   Furthermore, the proposed remedy cannot offer any absolute degree of confidence
        that mercury vapors will remain below the remedial action objective in perpetuity. Since,
        exposure to mercury vapor, at any level, is not a usual occurrence in most households, and
        mercury vapor exposure is a documented health hazard,  the HRHC cannot support any
        alternatives in which occupants of a residential building may be exposed to mercury vapor.
        Thus, the HRHC cannot support alternatives 2 or 3.

                 "SERVING BAYONNE. EAST NEWARK. GUTTENBERG. HARRISON. HOBOKEN.
                          JERSEY CITY. KEARNY. NORTH BERGEN. SECAUCUS.
                            UNION CITY. WEEHAWKEN. WEST NEW YORK."
-------
Alternative  4 proposes remedial measures similar to Alternatives 2 and  3 but would
restrict occupancy to commercial or industrial.  Under this scenario workers would be
exposed to  mercury vapor, presumably at levels  well  below the OSHA  Permissible
Exposure Limit (PEL).   However, workers would still need to be informed  of their
exposure_.to mercury pursuant to the Hazard Communication Standard.  There can be no
guarantee that such notice would be made to workers by future occupants of the building.
This may allow workers to unknowingly and possibly unwillingly be exposed to  mercury
vapor. Additionally, there would be no means to restrict future renovation which could
conceivably damage controls which were put in place to control mercury vapor exposure.
Thus, the HRHC does not support remedial alternative 4.

With regard to the issue of permanent relocation of the residents, the HRHC believes the
residents should  be  recompensed for their actual monetary losses associated with their
being unable to reside in the units which they constructed  or purchased.  The rationale for
this  is based on  the belief that  the buildings residents are  "innocent parties" who were
placed in substantial physical and monetary jeopardy due to mercury contamination within
the building.  The premise that the residents are "innocent parties" is based upon the fact
that they used due diligence to  a degree which would be expected of any  individual.   It
was only through the lack of discovery or disclosure of the contamination at the site by
parties who each individually should have either known  of, discovered, or caused to be
discovered the history of mercury use at the property that the residents are now damaged.
These parties are: the prior building owner who sold the property to  the Grand Street
Artists Partnership (GSAP), the environmental consultant for the buildings seller;  the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; and the environmental consultant for the
GSAP. Had any one of these entities reported the use of mercury at the  site to GSAP, the
HRHC would not view the residents as "innocent parties".  Furthermore, upon discovery
of some mercury in the building, GSAP hired additional environmental consultants who
they viewed as experts with regard to such contamination.  These consultants  allegedly
assured them the contamination was not extensive and could be remediated.  Presently the
Commission knows  of no evidence which demonstrates the members of GSAP were aware
of the use of mercury within the building prior to its purchase by them.  Thus, the HRHC
can  only consider supporting those options which offer recompense to the residents in the
form of "permanent relocation".
-------
HRHC believes alternative 6 is the remedy which will permanently eliminate all potential
environmental and public health hazards associated with the site as well as recompense a
small portion of the damages suffered by residents of the building.

If you have any questions in this regard please feel free to contact me.
                                          Sincerely,
                                          Gary Garetano, Assistant Director
c: Robert Ferraiuolo, Director
   Frank Sasso, Health Officer
-------
                        CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
                                    CITY HALL
                     HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY 07030-4585
    BOCCIO

Council President
HOME:    798-1688
BUSINESS: 420-2342
                                Septembers, 1997
Mr. John Hansen
Project Manager
US Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway
New York, New York 10007

Dear Mr. Hansen:

On behalf of the Council of the City of Hoboken, I would like to strongly encourage the United
States Environmental Agency to implement Alternative #5 regarding the disposition of
contaminated property known as 722 Grand Street within the City of Hoboken.

After discussion among city officials and with representatives of the EPA, it is clear that
Alternative #5 is the only solution that suits both the needs of the city and the residents of the
affected area.

I hope that implementation of Alternative #5 can proceed in a timely fashion to resolve this long-
standing problem of contamination within the City of Hoboken.

                                    Sincerely,
                                Richard Del Boccio
                               City Council President
-------
      Grand Street Artist Partnership  722-732 Grand Street Hoboken   NJ   07030
September 3, 1997
Mr. John Hansen
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway  19th floor
New York, New York 10007-1866

Re: Proposed Clean Up Plan for the Grand Street Mercury Site In Hoboken, NJ
Dear Mr. Hansen:

I am writing on behalf of the Grand Street Artists and each of its members to express our
gratitude for the diligence and dedication with which the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency ("EPA") has examined and addressed the consequences of the mercury contamination
at the Grand Street property. We are particularly gratified by the fact that the EPA has
considered not only the technical aspects of the various remedial alternatives described in the
Focused Feasibility Study, but the devastating impact which the mercury contamination has
had on the lives of the families which sought to make this building their home.  We are also
writing to express our unqualified support for the proposed remediation Alternative #5
recommended by the EPA.

Many of the residents had the opportunity to speak at the public meeting and to describe, in
very personal terms,  the manner in which their lives and the lives of their children have been
forever changed by the mercury contamination at the Brand Street property.  In addition to the
harsh realization that we will never be able to return to our homes, we must also try to cope
with the stress,  anxiety, fear and uncertainty which each of us faces on a daily basis.
Although  events of the last several years have affected us in  many different ways  , the one
thought that is uppermost in the minds of each of the members of the Grand Street Artists is
the compelling need which each of us has to be able to find homes for our families, to be able
to plan for our futures and to begin to restore some sense of normalcy to our lives.

Although we understand the many technical requirements  which must be met before a remedy
can be determined and implemented, we remain anxious at the prospect of an administrative
process over which we  have no control but which will profoundly affect the lives of each of
-------
us. Although we are greatly appreciative of the speed with which the EPA has moved the
process along, we are fearful that other interested parties will attempt to impede, hinder and
delay the implementation of the remedy selected by the EPA and, in particular, the issuance of
permanent relocation benefits. To that end, we urge that the EPA do everything within its
power to issue the Record of Decision as soon as reasonably practicable and  to implement the
Proposed Plan with all deliberate speed so as to enable all  of the former residents of the
Grand Streelproperty to find new homes for themselves and their families and to begin the
hopeful process of rebuilding their lives.
Best Regard
StepHerrKeough, President
Grand Street Artists Partnership
-------
KENNETH J. HOLLENBECK
JOSEPH A. ASCKDNE'
GLENN C. KENZ
ROBERT E LEVY"
 Cmimi> C1MKA1. T1UAL
VICTOR E. KINON
STEVEN B. HART
EDWARD A. BERTELF
JAMES W. CLASSEN"
' AUO ADMITTED W NEW TOM
• AiJO ADMITTED tH BOnOYLVAKU
* ALJO ADMITTED D* DISTUCT Of CQUJVKA
SCARINCI  & HOLLENBECK
         ATTORNEYS AT LAW

      mTP://WWW.NJLEGALJNK. COM

          500 PLAZA DRIVE
            P.O. BOX 3189
       SECAUCUS, N. J. 07096-3189
            (201) 392-8900
          FAX (201) 348-3877
JOSEPH S. SHERMAN
SHERI K. SIEGELBAUM
SCOTT A. CARVER
ALLAN C. ROTH
KAREN LEVINE'
DOLORES M. BLACKBURN
MAURA JOHNSON KIMBAU.
PATRICK J. McNAMARA'
FRANK A. BLANDINO1
SEAN D. D1AT
STEPHEN N. SEVERUD
GINA GEORGE-GREER
MARIE CINQUE
NOMI IRENE LOWT
RUSHTON S. YOUNG1
                                        September 5,  1997
     VIA UPS  KEXT DAY AIR
     Mr. John Hansen
     Remedial Project Manager
     USEPA  -  Region II
     290 Broadway, 19th Floor
     New York,  New York  10007-1866

          Re:   Response on Behalf of Anthony  Mastromauro
                Focused Feasibility Study by USEPA
                722 Grand Street Superfund Site  - Hoboken, N.J,
                Our File No.  1907.1000
     Dear Mr.  Hansen:

          Please  accept   this   letter  on   behalf   of  Mr.  Anthony
     Mastromauro,  a  former resident of  the 722  Grand Street Superfund
     Site.  The purpose of  this  letter is to  provide you with  comments
     concerning the  Focused  Feasibility  Study  ("FFS") issued by  the
     USEPA concerning this  property.

          Mr.  Mastromauro is  in full  agreement with  the conclusions
     reached in the FFS.   Ass  was stated at the public hearing conducted
     by the USEPA,  Mr. Mastromauro has absolutely no intention of ever
     taking up residence  in this building ever  again.  He has  suffered
     both physical  and psychological damages  as a direct result  of his
     exposure  to the  mercury contamination which permeates  the premises.

          We believe  it is absolutely inconceivable that any party could
     actually  advocate the idea of attempting to remediate  this  building
     to a level where  it  would be  "safe"  for residential  use, or even
     for commercial purposes.   Given the documented levels  of mercury in
     the  blood  and  urine  samples of  the   residents, and  the  long
     recognized toxicity  of mercury,  it is untenable from any  reasoned
     scientific standpoint for  anyone  to believe that this  building
     could ever be occupied  again for  any type  of use.   It  is  worth
     noting that many of  these persons had only a few months exposure,
     yet showed significant levels  of mercury in their  blood  and  urine.
-------
September 5, 1997
page 2
One  need not  speculate  very  much to  recognize  the  permanent
physical  and  psychological damage  which would  have occurred  to
people like Mr. Mastromauro if  this exposure had gone on for even
a few more months.   The recent report issued on  June 30,  1997  by
the  USEPA  concerning  mercury emissions  from  the  disposal  of
florescent lamps only highlights the environmental hazards posed by
mercury.  Unfortunately, we fully expect that General Electric, and
possibly other PRP's, will ignore overwhelming evidence.  We hope
that the USEPA is fully  prepared to address and rebut the onslaught
of scientific  gibberish  that  is  to  come   to  justify such  an
outrageous position.

    As  such,  we  strongly  urge  the  USEPA   to   proceed  with
Alternative No. 5 in the FFS,  which calls for permanent relocation
and  demolition  of the  building.   The latter is the only  way  to
insure that this threat is eradicated from the environment.  It is
also, in  the  long run,  likely to be far more cost  efficient than
attempting to remediate the building interior.  It does not appear
to us  to be  economically justifiable  to literally have  to gut
several floors, in an attempt to "save"  the  building, an activity
which may not address,  let  alone remediate, all of the  mercury
contamination which permeates this  structure.

    While we can anticipate that there  will be  challenges to the
Record of Decision ("ROD") and the finalization of the NPL listing
of this Site, we  hope that all of the parties interested  in this
matter do not lose sight of the  human element involved.  Unlike the
typical Superfund Site, which is usually an  abandoned  industrial
facility or a landfill, this building was the home,  and center  of
both the professional and personal lives, of most of its residents.
It is  easy  for lawyers and  PRP's to "sit  around the  table" and
argue over remediation  strategies and which  technology  to use and
the dollars at stake.

    What is  far more  critical here is the  cost in the  ongoing
disruption  of  the  lives  of  the  former residents  such  as  Mr.
Mastromauro, which has  been an  ongoing saga  for  nearly  two years.
While we recognize that the process used by  the USEPA at this Site
has  been  expedited   to  the  extent  possible  under  the  NPL
regulations, and we appreciate the efforts of all those involved in
this effort, he,  along  with  every other resident,  is entitled  to
finality. The proposed  Alternative No. 5 will bring that finality,
and some sense of closure for all of the former residents.  No one
can truly make up  for the tremendous disruption to the professional


                                            SCARINCI & HOLLENBECK
-------
September 5, 1997
Page 3
and personal  lives  of people like Mr.  Mastromauro and the other
former residents.  However, it is time  for this  ongoing "Twilight
Zone" existence  for Mr.  Mastromauro,  as well as the other former
residents, to come to an end.

     We  strongly urge the  USEPA to  move forward  as  quickly as
possible with the  issuance of the ROD,  the  NPL listing,  and the
processing of permanent  relocation for  Mr.  Mastroraauro.   If you
have any questions concerning this submission, please contact us at
your convenience.
                                 Respectfully Submitted,
                                 PAT:
                                 For
   McNAMARA
Firm
PJM/cm
cc:  Anthony Mastromauro
     Hon. Robert Menendez
                                            SCARINCI & HOLLENBECK
-------
                           STERNS  & WEINROTH
                               A ^HOrcSSlONAL COMOM A TlON
                               COUNSELLORS AT LAW
                                  90 WEST STATE STREET                  19O, ATLANTIC AVCNUC
                                       SUITE I4OO                       ATLANTIC CITY N j O«*Ol
                                      POBdxizea                      ieow 3*o-«3oo
                            TRENTON. NEW JERSEY OeeO7-(2S»8             fACS.HILt »O« **O
                                      i«O9l 392-ZlOO
WRITER'S DIRECT LINE:                      rACSiMiLt
                                      I0O9I 302-7096


   (609)989-6034                                                      ^50619-01

                                  Septembers, 1997

   Via Federal Express

   John Hansen, Remedial Project Manager
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
   290 Broadway -19th Floor
   New York, NY  10007-1866

        Re: Grand Street Mercury Superfund Site
            Hoboken, New Jersey

   Dear Mr. Hansen:

        John J.  Pascale, Sr. ("John Pascale") submits these comments in response to the

   United States Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") July 9, 1997 Focused Feasibility

   Study concerning  the property  located at 720  and  722-32 Grand Street,  Hoboken, New

   Jersey ("the site"). We request that these comments be added to the Administrative Record

   We reserve our right to amend and/or supplement the Administrative Record in the future.

        On  March  28,  1997. John Pascale  submitted  comments in  response  to  EPA's

   February 24, 1997 Unilateral Administrative Order  ("UAO"), which  included  a detailed

   statement of relevant facts describing John Pascale's relationship to the site.  We incorporate

   the statement of relevant facts set forth in the March 28,  1997 letter into these  comments
-------
John H«n««n
September 5, 1997
Page 2
Additionalfy, John Pascalt requests that the following changes be made to the facts wt fort

in the Focused Feasibility Study:

       1.  The Focused Feasibility Study states at page i and page 5 that mercury vapo,

lamps were manufactured at the sKe until 1965. According to  Warren Millar, an owner *n<

operator of  the  Cooper  Hewitt Electric  Company  ("Cooper Hewitt"), Cooper Hewitt's

operations ended  in 1964.  See pages  168 and 216 of Warren Millar's March 6, 199/
                                                                                 d

deposition transcript, which are attached hereto.  By including these excerpts from Warrer

Millar's deposition transcript, John Pascale has not accepted or acknowledged the accuracy

of Mr  Millar's testimony.

       2.  Paragraph 2,  page i, unnecessarily  states what  "the  GSAP  thought" when

mercury was discovered on three occasions through 1995.   The purpose of the Focused

Feasibility  Study is to assess  site conditions and evaluate alternatives  to  the  extent

necessary to select a remedy.  40 C F.R.  §300.430.  Thus, there is no reason for the

Focused Feasibility Study to include what members of the GSAP allege they were thinking

when they discovered mercury in the building.  We agree that the Focused Feasibility Study

should include background information regarding the discovery of mercury.  However, this

can be accomplished by describing how and when mercury was discovered.

       3  The first sentence of Paragraph 2, page 5 states that John Pascale operated the

Quality Tool and Die Company ("Quality") from  1940 to 1970.   The reference  to 1970 is

incorrect; it should be changed to 1979.
-------
S«pt*mb«r5,1997
Page 3
     4.   The third sentence of Paragraph 2, page 5 is incorrect.  Majoda did not move to

51 Market Street, Hoboken in 1963.

     5.   Paragraph 2, page 5  should include a  statement  indicating  that  Quality's

operations did not involve the use of mercury.

     6.   The first sentence of paragraph 4, page 5 is incorrect,  all stock in  Mojada was

given to David Pascale, not John J. Pascale, Jr.

     7.   EPA should  identify the factual basis  for the  statements made  in the section

entitled "Site History," page 4 through paragraph 1 of page  7

     8.  On page  8,  paragraph  2,  EPA  states that the  Hudson Regional  Health

Commission ("HRHC") became aware of the mercury remediation  activities and visited the

site in September 1995 to inspect the remediation activities.  The Focused Feasibility  Study

should state how the HRHC was made aware of the mercury remediation activities.

      John Pascale agrees with and hereby adopts the General Electric Company's ("GE")

technical  evaluation of the Focused  Feasibility Study, which begins at Section III  of GE's

comments on the Focused Feasibility Study.  Specifically,  but not by way of limitation, John

Pascale agrees with the following conclusions reached by GE:

      •   The action levels adopted by EPA are inappropriately extreme.

      •   EPA has  conducted a  risk  assessment  that is  not  based  on  actual,  realistic

         exposure  assumptions  but,  has based its decisions on implausible exposure

         scenarios.
-------
JohnHanaan
September 5, 1997
Page 4
      •  EPA should have applied the exposure standard set by the American Confereno

         of Governmental Industrial Hygienists ("ACGIH"), 1996.

      •  The use of excessively high exposure standards and EPA's failure to explain wtr

         preexisting standards are not appropriate constitute violations of the National 0

         and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan ("NCP").

      •  EPA has incorrectly assumed and has failed to demonstrate that remediation to

         industrial standards is infeasible.

      •  EPA has failed to  recognize  that GE has significant experience in remediating

         mercury-contaminated buildings for industrial use and that the remedial methods

         used by GE  at other facilities can be readily and successfully implemented at the

         site at much  less cost than EPA's proposed remedy.

      •  EPA's  risk assessment is  incorrectly based upon  inflated breathing  rates for

         industrial workers and the presence of sensitive subpopulations.

      •  Remediation to accepted industrial and commercial standards is cost effective and

         pursuant to  40  C.F.R.  §300.430(f)(ii)(D), should be selected as the appropriate

         remedy for the sife.

      •   EPA's risk assessment has incorrectly assumed a residential exposure scenario

         The property was improperly converted to residential use as a result of the Grand

          Street Artists Partnership's negligence and David Pascale's submissions pursuant

          to New Jersey's Environmental Cleanup Responsibility Act (N J S.A.  13 1K-5 et
-------
John H§n»«n
Septembers, 1997
Pag«5
        sea). EPA's risk assessment should have been based or. the more reasonable

        assumption that the site will be used for industrial/commercial purposes.

     •  EPA's estimated exists for permanent relocation are unsupported and overstated.

        The  NCP  at 40 C.F.R. §300.160(a)(i)  requires EPA to complete and  maintain

        documentation supporting all actions taken under the NCP. Additionally. 40 C.F R.

        §300.810 requires that the Administrative  Record include those documents that

        form the basis for EPA's response action.   Contrary to these requirements. EPA

        has not  documented the basis for its estimate regarding permanent relocation of

        the former residents.

     •  EPA has improperly failed to reduce the  costs of permanent relocation by the

        amount  of insurance coverage available to the former residents of the  site.  44

        C.F.R. §221.5  prohibits EPA from  providing  duplicative benefits  to displaced

        persons.

     •  The  Focused Feasibility Study provides cost estimates for remediating the site to

        residential standards that are inconsistent  with the technical engineering report

        prepared by Levire-Fricke-Recon.

     •  For the  reasons set forth in John Pascale's March 28, 1997 comments  to EPA's

        UAO and GE's April 1, 1997 comments to EPA's UAO, it is unlawful and  improper

        for EPA to pay relocation benefits to the  prior residents, who are liable under

        CERCLA.   Furthermore, for  the reasons set forth in John Pascale's March 28.
-------
John Hansen
Septembers  1997
Page 6
         1997 comments to EPA's UAO, John Pascale is not liable as a matter of law for


         relocation costs.


      John Pascale  also has the following questions regarding  the Focused Feasibility


Study.


      1.   Has EPA determined whether any employees of the companies that previously


occupied the srte have suffered from mercury inhalation?  EPA should describe the efforts it


has taken to determine whether employees of the former companies have suffered from


mercury inhalation.

                                                                             • ,
      2.   Does EPA agree  that the answer to Question No. 1  above :s relevant in deciding


whether the building  should be remediated to industrial standards? If no, please explain


why.


      3   Has EPA  evaluated the effect of GSAP's renovation efforts on the  release of


mercury?  If yes, explain the results of that evaluation.


      4.   Has EPA taken any groundwater sample* at the site?  If yes, provide  the results


of the samples taken. If no, when will EPA conduct groundwater sampling?


                                      Very truly yours,
                                      >r-> '*•   -  - ^>y ^
                                       John F Sempte

JFS:vkb
-------
1               UNITED STATES  DISTRICT COURT
                   DISTRICT  OP NEW JERSEY
2              CIVIL ACTION  NO.  96-3774  (DRD)

3

4    GRAND STREET ARTISTS,
     J.  MATTHEW SCHLEY, BARBARA   :
5    KENRY,  HANK SCHLBY, by  hi«
     Guardians ad litem J. MATTHEW:
€    SCKLEY and BARBARA HENRY/
     CHINA MARKS, JOHN STEADWBLL,  :
7    MEREDITH LIPPMAN. NORA
     JACOBSON, DAVID PERM, STEPHEN:
8    KEOUGH, SERENA BOCCHINO.  EZRA
     KEOUGH, by his Guardians      :
9    ad  licem STEPHEN KEOUGH and
     SERENA BOCCHINO, MICHAEL      :
10    SOLTER, CORINNE MULRENAN,
     SULTAN CATTO. NESLIHAN  CATTO.:
11    IMRE CATTO and KEREM  CATTO.
     by  their Guardians ad litem  :
12    SULTAN CATTO and NESLIHAN
     CATTO.  MARK GRAHAM, MYRA      :
13    GRAHAM, EILEEN HOFFMAN,
     ROBERT VICHNIS. TOVA  BECK    :
14    FRIEDMAN, Y. ZAK FRIEDMAN,
     BARATC FRIEDMAN. CURTIS        :
15    CRYSTAL, NANCY JESSUP,
     ROBERT SCHIFFMACHER,          :
16    SHUN-YI CHEN and CHING-HUANG
     CHUNG                         :
17                                        (Videotape)
                    Plaintiffs.   :    Deposition  of:
18
              - against  -           :    WARREN  G. MILLAR
19
     GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,    :
20    COOPER HEWITT  ELECTRIC  CO.,
     INC., QUALITY  TOOL  &  DIE      :
21    CO., JOHN J. PASCALS,
     DAVID P. PASCALS.  SHERRILL   :
22    PASCALE, ROGERS
     ENVIRONMENTAL  MANAGEMENT.    :
23    INC., JENNY  ENGINEERING
     CORPORATION, ENPAK  SERVICES  :
24    COMPANY, INC.,  ENVIRONMENTAL.

25
            WAGA  i  SPINELLI        (201}  592-4111
-------
 1    WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES,  :
     INC. and CHASAN, LEYNBR,
 2    TARRANT fc LAMPARELLO,         :

 3       '            Defendant*.    :

 4
     PARKER, et al . ,
 5                                  :
                    Plaintiffs,
 6                                  :
             - against  -
 7                                  :
     GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
 8    et al.,                       :

 9                   Defendants.    :

10

11

12           TRANSCRIPT  of  testimony  as  taken by and

13    before ANNA  I. CROUCH,  a  Shorthand Reporter and

14    Notary^Public  for  the Commonwealth of  Kentucky,

15    at  che Commonwealth  Hilton,  7373  Turfway Road,

16    Florence, Kentucky,  on Thursday,  March 6,  1997,

17    commencing at  10:10  in the  forenoon.

18

19

20    APPEARANCES:

21
            SIDLEY  &  AUSTIN
22           1722  Eye  Street,  N.W.
            Washington,  D C.   20006
23           EY:   LANGLEY  R. SHOOK.  ESQ.
            For  the Defendant, .General Electric Company
24            (202)736-8197

25



            WAG A  i  SPIN'ELLI       (231) r92-4 111
-------

1
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13
14

15

•16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

APPEARANCES: (Continued)
CAMHY, KARLINSKY fc STBIN, L.L.P.
1740 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, New York 10019
BY: ROBERT P. STBIN, ESQ.
For the Plaintiff, Grand Street Art
<212) 977-6600

MBDVIN & ELBBRG
One Gateway Center
Newark, New Jersey 07102
BY: PHILIP S. ELBERG, ESQ.
For the Plaintiffs, Katherine Parke
Gerald Norton, individually and as
Guardians ad litem, Janet Filomeno
Louis Nel
(201) 642-1300

STERNS & WEINROTH
50 West State Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08607
BY: JOHN F. SEMPLE, ESQ.
For the Defendant, John J. Pascale,
(609) 392-2100
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,
COLEMAN & GOGGIN
Three Greentree Centre, Suite 304
Marlton, New Jersey 08053
BY: EMILY H. ARMSTRONG, ESQ.
For the Defendant, Chasan, Leyner,
Tarrant & Lamparello
(609) 985- 3900

3





iits






r ,

and







Sr .










HELLRING, LINDEMAN, GOLDSTEIN & SIEGAL
One Gateway Center
Newark, New Jersey 07102
BY: MATTHEW E. MOLOSHOK, ESQ.
For the Defendants, David P. Pascal
Sherrill Pascale
(201 ) 621-9020

PITNEY, HARDIN, KIPP & SZUCH
Park Avenue at Morris County
Morristown, New Jersey 07962
BY: PETER J. HERZBERG, ESQ.



e and







For the Defendant, Rogers Environmental
(201 ) 966-6300

WAGA  &  SPINELLI         (201)  992-4111
-------
C
               orrziani
                                                           5 MARINE VIEW PLAZA
                                                               SUITE 500
                                                         HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY 0703P
                                                              (201)963-3194
                                                            FAX (201) 963-0148
                                       September 8, 1997
Mr. John Hansen
Remedial Project Manager USEPA-Region II
Emergency and Remedial Response  Division
New York, NY  10007-1866

                 Re :   Hoboken Grand Street  Mercury Site

Dear Mr. Hansen:

           This letter is in support  of EPA's preferred Alternative  5
at the Grand Street Mercury Site,  as  providing the best outcome for
the Hoboken community and the building's  former residents.

           I have been a developer and owner of residential housing  in
Hoboken since the 1970's.  My companies currently own and/or manage
more than 2000 Apartments, including  both market rate and rent-
subsidized units, in the City of Hoboken.   Several of our projects are
within a few blocks of the Grand Street site, and given Hoboken's
limited land area, none of our buildings  are very far from the site.

           The decision to demolish the former mercury vapor lamp
factory, relocate the displaced  residents,  and clean the soil is the
only sensible choice for the community.   Hoboken does not need a toxic
question-mark situated across the  street  from the High School and in
an area which is becoming more and more residential.  Rather, the City
would be best served by having the building removed and the site
entirely cleaned.

           We therefore endorse  the EPA's proposed plan, and applaud
the Agency's prompt action toward  removing this blight from our
community

                                       Ve
                                               arry, President,
                                               Companies
-------
                                                croMJi
                                         MM*.- ftOi) m-niO Dial CMML- t*2»-J210
                                         /fat.- (303) J73-26U DU Ctmm:
                                  September 8, 1997

BY MESSENGER

JohnHansen
Remedial Project Manager
U S Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, New York 10007-1866

             Re    Grand Street Mercury Site, Hoboken, New Jersey

Dear Mr. Hansen:

             Enclosed are the Comments of the General Electric Company on the Focused
Feasibility Study and Proposed Remedial Action Plan for the Grand Street Mercury Site in
Hoboken, New Jersey For your convenience, we have enclosed an extra copy of the comments.

             We request that these materials be placed in the administrative record for this site.
Thank you.

                                              Sincerely,
                                              Leonard H Shen
cc:    Catherine Garypie, Esq , ORC
Enclosures
-------
      Comments of the General Electric Company
            on the Focused Feasibility Study
          and Proposed Remedial Action Plan
for the Grand Street Mercury Site, Hoboken, New Jersey.
                     Submitted By:

               The General Electric Company
                  3135 Easton Turnpike
                   Fairfield, CT 06431

                    Septembers, 1997
-------
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

I     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                          1

II    BACKGROUND	  4

     A.    The Industrial History Of The Site	   4

     B.    The Unlawful Sale And Conversion Of The Factory To Residential
           Condominiums	  6

     C    The Temporary Relocation	   8

     E    The CERCLA Contribution Actions	   9

     F    EPA Enforcement Activities	    10

III   THE RISK ASSESSMENT AND EPA'S PROPOSED REMEDIAL
     ACTION ARE TECHNICALLY INFIRM AND DO NOT COMPORT
     WITH EPA REGULATIONS AND POLICY                           11

     A.    Overview	      	    	      11

     B    The NCP, EPA Guidance Documents And EPA's Administrative
           Reforms Require That Risk  .Assessments Be "Grounded In Reality"
           And That Remedial Actions Be Sensible And Cost-Effective         13

     C    EPA's Risk Assessment is Scientifically Unsupportable, and the
           Application of Appropriate, Risk-Based Exposure Standards
           Demonstrates that Remediating the Site for Industrial or Commercial
           Use is Protective of Human Health	            15

            1      The Derivation of EPA's Stringent Mercury Cleanup Level
                  for Industrial Exposure is Fundamentally Flawed            15

           2      Existing Occupational Standards for Mercury Vapor Are
                  Reasonable and Are Supported by the Scientific Literature    19

           3      Conclusion	   	   27

      D    GE Has Had Considerable Experience And Success In Industrial
           Mercury Remediation                        ..              28
-------
      E     Remediation of the Factory to Industrial/Commercial Standards
            is Cott-Effective, and Should Have Been Selected by EPA as the
            Appropriate Remedial Action	 31

      F     EPA Inappropriately Employed a Residential Exposure Scenario
            in the Risk Assessment	 33

      G    EPA Miscalculated The Soil Exposure Risks, Soil Remediation At
            the Site Is Not Necessary	 37

IV    EPAS ESTIMATED REMEDIAL COSTS ARE NOT ADEQUATELY
      SUPPORTED BY  THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AND ARE
      OVERSTATED	 39

      A    EPA's Estimated Costs Of Permanent Relocation Are Suspect and
            Overstated	         	39

      B    Because Soil Remediation Is Unnecessary, Supra, EPA Should Not
            Consider The Costs of Soil Remediation	       44

      C    EPA Has Also Overstated The Costs Of Remediating The Building
            For Residential Reoccupancy	  45

V     LIABILITY  ISSUES              	 46

VI    CONCLUSION                              	    47

Attachment I        Summary of studies suggesting effects of mercury exposure at < 50 ng/m3

Attachment 2        Cost estimates of remediation to commercial/industrial standards and
                   building demolition

Attachment 3        Excerpt of Transcript of Meeting of the Grand Street Artists Partnership,
                   August 15, 1995

Attachment 4        Report,  American Appraisal .Associates, September 5, 1997

Attachment 5        Insurance certificates of Grand Street Artists Condominium Association,
                   Inc.

Attachment 6        Letter (and attachments) from L Shen,  GE, to J  Green,  EPA, August 20
                    1997
                                        - 11 -
-------
                     Comments of the General Electric Company
                           on the Focused Feasibility Study
                         and Proposed Remedial Action Plan
               Tor the Grand Street Mercury Site, Boboken, New Jersey
                                  September 8, 1997


            The General Electric Company ("GE") submits these comments regarding the

United States Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA's") Focused Feasibility Study ("FFS")

and Proposed Remedial Action Plan ("PRAP") (July 9, 1997) and supporting Baseline Human

Health Risk Assessment (Apr. 1997) concerning the Grand Street Mercury Site in Hoboken, New

Jersey (the "Site")  Pursuant to the extension of time provided by EPA in which to  file these

comments, GE is providing these comments by September 8, 1997  GE requests that these

comments be included in the administrative record for the Site and reserves the right to provide

additional comments and to supplement the administrative record in the future.



I.      EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

             From the first, when EPA began providing temporary relocation benefits to

residents who had knowingly purchased units in the mercury-contaminated factory building at 722

Grand Street in Hoboken ("the  Factory"), EPA has used the Superfund to profit a group of

residents for the consequences of their own actions. On July 9, 1997, EPA took the latest

significant step in that direction when it issued a plan to demolish the building and to buy new

residences for the building owners.

             EPA's decision to level the Factory is driven by the Agency's risk assessment and

 its conclusion that the building cannot be safely remediated for appropriate, non-residential use
-------
In fact, if one believes EPA's risk assessment, demolition is unavoidable because the Agency has




proposed an exposure level for mercury so minute that no reasonable amount of remedial work




could possibly meet it.  But the risk assessment is not to be believed.  Sweeping aside established,




scientifically sound exposure standards developed through elaborate, independent, and peer-




reviewed procedures by US. and international agencies, EPA has come up with its own mercury




exposure standard keyed to the politicized circumstances of the Hoboken Site  The result of this




stretching exercise is a mercury standard two orders of magnitude less than the industrial




standards set by more than a dozen developed countries in five continents and the World Health




Organization. To get to this result, EPA has ignored current, scientifically sound workplace




exposure standards set by the very agency charged with protecting worker health and safety -- the''




Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") - and by national standards




organizations, such as the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health ("N10SH") and




the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists ("ACGIH"), whose purpose is to




evaluate occupational risks and develop exposure standards to address those risks.  EPA has




identified no site-specific features warranting its radical departure from such established exposure




standards. Instead, in an apparent effort to create support for the Agency's preferred remedial




alternative. EPA has chosen to rely upon a risk assessment that is flawed, unrealistic and based on




incorrect principles and assumptions.  The critical flaws in the risk assessment, and EPA's




inappropriate departure from established, scientifically sound exposure standards,  run to the heart




of the selection of the proposed  remedy, and demonstrate that EPA's proposal is arbitrary and




capricious
-------
             In addition, EPA ignores the basic facts - that this property was historically used

for industrial purposes and was unlawfully and improvidently converted to residential use. Thus,

the Agency's reliance upon residential exposure assumptions as the underlying support for the

PRAP is arbitrary and capricious.  When an appropriate remediation standard is applied, it

becomes clear that remediation of the Factory to commercial/industrial standards not only is

protective and viable, but is by far the most cost-effective option.  Thus, EPA is  required by the

criteria set out in the NCP to select remediation to commercial/Industrial standards as the remedy

for the Site.

             In contrast, EPA's PRAP represents a giant step backwards in EPA's approach to

Superfund sites  Contrary to EPA's policies that risk assessments should be grounded in reality,
                                                                                        • «
EPA here has developed an exposure standard that leaves reality behind  Contrary to EPA's

policies of promoting the continued use of viable industrial property, EPA proposes just to tear

down the still viable Factory  And, contrary to EPA's policies — and its statutory mandate — of

promoting cost-effective remedial decisionmaking, EPA has rejected a protective,  viable, and

cost-effective alternative of restoring the Factory to industrial  use, in favor of the most expensive

remedy under consideration — leveling the Factory and buying new residences for  the current

owners. The remedy not only is inconsistent with the remedy-selection criteria promulgated in the

NCP, it inappropriately profits the owners of the Factory, compensating them for far more than

their out-of-pocket costs in a situation where they knowingly purchased units in a building

contaminated with mercury.

             Finally. EPA has put forth a proposed remedy not supported by the administrative

 record. EPA refuses to divulge key aspects of the basis for the proposed remedy, including any of


                                           -3-
-------
the analysis supporting the Agencys claim that it will cost nearly $10 million to relocate the

residents  EPA's failure to document the basis of its proposed decision denies GE the opportunity

for meaningful comment and subverts the statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to

CERCLA remedial decisionmaking.

              GE's specific comments follow  To understand the extent of the errors underlying

the proposed plan, it is necessary to  set out the facts surrounding the use of this property and the

unlawful conversion to residential use  After summarizing that background, GE will analyze

EPA s unsound risk assessment and  demonstrate how under an appropriate risk assessment it is

protective, feasible and cost-effective to return the Factory to industrial use  We will then discuss

the inadequacies in the administrative record  supporting the PRA?



Q.     BACKGROUND'

        A.    The Industrial History Of The Site

              The Site is a former industrial plant located at 722 Grand Street, Hoboken, New

Jersey,  comprised of a five-story brick factory building and an adjoining four-story structure

(collectively, "the Factory")  Beginning in approximately 1910, the Cooper Hewitt Electric

Company ("Cooper Hewitt I") owned and operated the Factory to produce lighting equipment

and other products, including Cooper  Hewitt mercury vapor lamps  In approximately 1919. GE
 1  The factual statements made herein are based on GE's best current understanding of the facts, as
 drawn from discovery to date and the admissions of the parties in the pending administrative and
 judicial proceedings  Many of the crucial facts in this matter began to surface only recently.
 beginning with the Grand Street Artists Partnership's (GSAP's) Response to EPA's CERCLA
 ^ 104(ej Request for Information (Dec  11, 1996) (the "GSAP Response") and the panics' initial
 information disclosures in the pending private litigation. Grand Street Artists, et al v  General
 Elec Co . et ai. Civ No 96-3774  (D N J ) (the "private contribution actions")

                                             4 -
-------
acquired an interest in Cooper Hewitt I  By approximately 1940, GE had acquired all of Cooper




Hewitt I's business and had become the owner and operator of the Factory  During World War




II, GE operated the Factory in support of the war effort




              Information presented in initial discovery in the private contribution actions and in




EPA's administrative depositions demonstrates that during GE's involvement at the Factory




operations were conducted safely and cleanly, and in accordance with the prevailing commercial




practices of the time  Significantly, knowledgeable former employees recall no instances of




employee health or safety problems because of exposure to mercury at the Factory  See




Deposition Transcript of Warren Millar ("Millar Dep  Trans.") at 64-65, Deposition Transcript of




 JohnJ Pascale ("Pascale Dep Trans ") at 105-06; EPA Admin  Deposition Transcript of Francis*-




 Chenel at 30-31




              In 1948, GE discontinued its operations in Hoboken and sold the Factory and




 associated property with full disclosures to a newly established corporation, which operated as




 Cooper Hewitt ("Cooper Hewitt II")  The new  company, which had no connection to GE,




 manufactured Cooper Hewitt mercury vapor lamps and other lighting products at the Factory




 until  approximately 1964, when it moved its operations to Kentucky  Although Cooper Hewitt II




 sold the Factory in 1955 to John Pascale, it continued to manufacture mercury vapor lamps at the




 Factory as a tenant until 1964.  From 1948-1979, John Pascale operated a tool and die business.




 Quality Tool & Die Company ("Quality), at the  Factory




              In 1979, John Pascale transferred the Factory and the Quality business to his son,




 David Pascale  David Pascale continued to use  the Factory for industrial purposes until a legal




 dispute with his father resulted in the temporary transfer of the property back to John Pascale  In






                                          -5-
-------
1988, John Pascale ceased operating the Quality business and sold off virtually all of its assets.

David Pascale regained title to the Factory shortly thereafter In August 1993, David Pascale sold

the Factory to GSAP for conversion from industrial use to residential condominiums  Thus, from

the beginning of the century, for at least eight decades, the Factory had been used continuously

for industrial purposes.



       B.     Thg Unlawful Sale And Conversion Of The Factory To Residential
              Condonrinium*

              Quality s industrial operations ceased in 1988 (Pascale Dep Trans at 102-04)

That cessation of operations triggered New Jersey's Environmental Cleanup Responsibility Act

("ECRA"), N J S A  13 1K-6 el  sfifl (currently known as the Industrial Site Recover,' Act

("ISRA"))  Under ECRA, Quality had a duty to file an application to the New Jersey Departmen

of Environmental Protection ("NJDEP") within 5 days of ceasing operations.  However, it was

not until 1990 that David Pascale filed an application under ECRA As the current owners, David

Pascale and Quality had a legal duty to comply with ECRA,  including investigating the property

and  cleaning up any contamination. Id at 13:1K-9, -13.

               Long before the ECRA process was completed — if not from the very beginning --

David Pascale specifically intended to sell the Factory  In the summer and fall of 1992, the

founding partners of what eventually became GSAP, Robert Schiffrnacher and Matthew Schley.

saw a "For Sale" sign on the Factory, inspected the building, and began negotiations with David

Pascale for the express purpose  of purchasing and converting the Factory into residential

condominiums  GSAP's Response at  pp  5-6  Nonetheless, David Pascale and Quality completed
                                           -6-
-------
the ECRA process based on initial ECRA submissions to the NJDEP and a so-called Negative

Declaration Affidavit, certified by David Pascale, that specified only "cessation of operations'1 as

 he ECRA trigger and did not disclose the planned conversion of the Factory for residential use

 Significantly, the ECRA submissions and Negative Declaration Affidavit also failed to disclose

 hat the Factory had been used to manufacture mercury vapor lamps and other products

 :ontaining mercury or which used mercury during manufacture, stating merely that the Factory

 had been used only to manufacture "light bulbs." See David Pascale ECRA Filing.2

             On August 4, 1993, GSAP formally was created, and on the same day it purchased

 the Factory from  David Pascale and his wife, Sherrill Pascale.  In or about November  1994, the

 first residents began to move into their respective units under temporary certificates of occupancy

             GSAP partners have admitted to discovering mercury in the building as early as

 October 1993 and on several occasions thereafter in different locations within the building  GSAP

 Response at pp 23-25  In January 1995, the renovation of a fifth floor unit revealed a "pool of

 mercury" in the Factory  GSAP Response at p 24  On or about May 1, 1995, the owners

 discovered even greater amounts of mercury in that urut  Complaint of GSAP gj a]., 1fl[ 71-72.

 All of the current unit owners purchased their  individual uruts from the Partnership after May 1,

  1995
  " A copy of this document was provided to EPA with GE's April 1, 1997, Comments to EPA's
  L'rulateral Adrrurustrative Order for removal action at the Site C UAO")  GE hereby incorporates
 , ^ose comments by reference into this document, including the attachments to the comments to
 :';; the UAO.
                                          -7-
-------
      C.     Tht Temporary Relocation




             In November 1995, attorneys for a minority of the owners reported the presence of




mercury in the Factory to the Hoboken Health Department ("HMD")  Letter from Steven R




Spector to Ira Karasick (Nov. 7,  1995).3 In late December 1995, the HHD requested EPA




assistance at the Factory, and on  January 2, 1996, the NJDEP further requested that EPA conduct




a removal action under Section 104(a) of CERCLA, 42 US C. § 9604(a)  On January 4, 1996,




EPA began a removal action, and HHD ordered the residents to leave the Factory.




             Coinciding with these events in Hoboken, the federal government was temporarily




shut down due to a budget stalemate between Congress and the White House, while the East




Coast was experiencing a record  snow blizzard. On January 8, 1996, GSAP's attorneys first




contacted GE regarding the  mercury situation and the impending evacuation  In view of the




unusual circumstances confronting EPA, GE temporarily set aside its serious reservations as to




liability, and within two days offered emergency funds to the former residents so they could afford




to vacate the building immediately   All of the residents took advantage of this offer and used up




virtually all of the money,  although not all of the funds were spent on emergency relocation.




              On or about January 11, 1996, the last of the former residents left the Factory




Since then, with the  initial, voluntary assistance from GE, EPA has managed the relocation and




paid for the housing and related expenses ("temporary relocation") of these former residents




EPA has done so without utilizing basic (and legally required) cost and fiscal management




controls, such as confirming the  unit owners' compliance with their mortgage obligations, and has




also provided "temporary relocation" to one couple who never even moved into their assigned
 3 A copy of this document was provided to EPA with GE's Apnl 1, 1997, UAO Comments.
-------
 unit or even purchased it.  Letter from Jtck Harmon, On-Scene Coordinator, EPA Region II, to

^Ching-Huang Chung & Sun-Yi Chen (Mar. 19, 1996).'  GE, pursuant to the terms of the modified

 UAO which became effective on May 9, 1997, has recently taken over the performance of certain

 removal activities at the site; however, EPA continues to pay temporary relocation benefits to the

$ former residents. GE has maintained and continues to maintain that it is not liable for temporary

fl relocation costs incurred in connection with the site.



       D.     The CERCLA Contribution Action*

             On August 7, 1996, GSAP. its individual partners, and the owners of the Factory

 and former residents filed their tort and private CERCLA contribution actions against GE, John

 and David  Pascale  and  other defendants, including GSAP's attorneys and environmental

 consultants who were retained in connection with the acquisition of the Factory 5  The complaints

 in the consolidated private contribution actions seek, inter alia, a judgment declaring that the

 plaintiffs, including the current owners, are not liable under CERCLA and, alternatively,

 contribution under CERCLA from GE, John Pascale and other defendants  GE has

 counterclaimed against GSAP  and the owners for a declaratory judgment that the Partnership and

 the current owners are liable under CERCLA and for contribution under CERCLA for any
   A copy of this document was provided to EPA with GE's April  1, 1997 UAO comments.

   An individual "re-sale" owner has filed a separate action, which  has been consolidated with the
 others, in which the plaintiff has also named GSAP and certain individual partners as defendants
 Mastromauro v  General Elec  Co.. et al.. Civ  No  97-1123 (D N J )  This plaintiff alleges in his
 complaint, among other things, that the previous owner of his condominium unit, Tova Beck
 Friedman and GSAP, negligently concealed from the plaintiff the presence of mercury in his urut
 before he ourcha^H it   Id. at «!
-------
response costs incurred by GE. CFs Motion for Partial Judgment on Pleadings or, Alternatively,




for Partial Summary Judgment currently is pending before the District Court. See Section V.




infra.









       E.     EPA Enforcement Activities




              On August 12, 1996. EPA issued General Notices of Potential Liability only to




GE.  John Pascale and David Pascale, naming them as CERCLA potentially responsible parties




("PRPs") at the Site  EPA has steadfastly refused to name the Partnership or any of the current




Site  owners as PRPs On February 24, 1997. EPA issued its UAO only to GE and John Pascale




EPA did not issue the UAO to either David Pascale.  the Partnership or any of the partners or




individual owners.  EPA subsequently modified the UAO to delete all requirements pertaining to




the temporary relocation of the former residents  This UAO. as modified, became effective on




May 9,  1997.




              The comments that follow must be considered against this unique and still-evotvni




factual background.
                                            10-
-------
OL    THE RISK ASSESSMENT A\D EPA'S PROPOSED REMEDIAL AmON ARE
      TECHNICALLY fNTTBM Al^fD DO NOT COMPOPT WITH r,p^
      REGULATIONS AND POLICY.

      A.     Overview

             EPA has selected a proposed remedy that is first and foremost based on the

Agency s evaluation of the potential risks of mercury exposure.  The Agency s preferred

alternative - demolition of the Factory and permanent relocation of the residents -- is the most

expensive remedial alternative considered by EPA in the PRAP  EPA concludes that there is no

viable available technology that can remediate the building to the exposure standards that the

Agency  has selected, and therefore the valuable Factory building must be destroyed

             It may be that the Factory cannot feasibly be remediated to the action levels

selected by EPA, but that is because the action levels adopted by the Agency are inappropriately

extreme  To get to those extreme levels, EPA has conducted a  risk assessment that is not based

on actual,  realistic exposure assumptions and risks but, instead,  has predicated its decisions on

implausible exposure scenarios chosen, it would appear, for the sole purpose of supporting EPA's

pre-ordained remedial preference -- demolition of the Factory  This is a warping of the normal

 Superfund decisionmaking process, and a rush to judgment that has been unduly influenced by

 community pressure.6
 6  The desires of community members are quite transparent. They are demanding demolition of
 both the Factory and the adjacent townhouse  See, e.g., Caren Lissner, Destroy it' Artists ask
 EPA to smash their contaminated creation. The Hoboken  Reporter, July 20, 1997 at 15 (noting
 that former residents, neighbors and others are urging EPA to demolish the building), Peralte C
 Paul, Demolish condos, EPA says: Owners, GE hear 573.5 million plan. The Jersey Journal, July
 17. 1997 (quoting a former resident as stating that demolition "is the right thing to do for us and
 the surrounding community")  As noted below, while the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
 Pollution Contingency Plan ("NCP"), 40 C F R Part 300, does allow EPA to consider the views
                                                                           (continued  )
-------
              EPA relies on its risk assessment u the basis for rejecting other viable alternatives,

including remediation of the Factory to current industrial standards  At bottom, however,

because the risk assessment is fundamentally flawed, it canr.ot be used to support EPA's preferred

remedial alternative

              EPA instead should have looked to respected existing exposure standards and

guidance to derive an appropriate mercury exposure level.  These standards and guidance have

been developed by agencies whose mission it is to put forth exposure standards assuring the safety

of workers — standards that an appropriate remediation of the Factory can attain. GE's own

evaluation of the most  stringent of these standards -- the 25 ug/m3 standard set by ACGEH --

shows that it is conservatively supported by the literature examining the potential health effects

attributable to mercury exposure  EPA offers no sound reason why these preexisting standards

are not appropriate for the Factory. Instead, EPA sweeps them aside, essentially promulgating its

own indoor exposure standards for mercury at levels so stringent that no workplace lawfully using

mercury could hope to attain them, notwithstanding compliance with promulgated federal

standards and existing  guidance   The precedent and policy implications which would flow from

EPA's approach here call for a full revisiting and revocation of this scientifically unfounded

proposal.
 6  (  continued)
 of the, community in selecting a remedy for a site, such considerations are not determinative
 Indeed, they may only be considered by the Agency as "modifying criteria" after a remedial
 alternative has been selected on the basis of protection of human health and the environment,
 cost-effectiveness, and other threshold and primary balancing criteria 40 C F R. § 300 430(0
-------
      B.     The NCP. EPA Guidance Documents And FPA'i Admlni«tr.Hve Rrformi
            Require That Riak Aneumgnti Be "Grounded In Reality" And That
            Remedial Artiona Be Sensible And Coat-Effective.

            The NCP establishes a three-tiered approach for selecting remedies under

CERCLA.  40 C F.R. § 300 430(0.  The first tier identifies the "threshold criteria" that a remedy

must satisfy — overall protection of human health and the environment and compliance with

applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements. The second tier sets out "primary balancing

criteria" (i.e., long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume

through treatment, short-term effectiveness; implementability; and cost).  The third and lowest-

weighted tier of review allows EPA to consider State and community acceptance as "modifying

criteria." Id

             Recently, EPA has explicitly stated,  also as part of its Superrund reforms, that the

 Agency must "make smarter cleanup choices that protect the public at less cost."  EPA Press

 Release, "Superfund Administrative Reforms" (Oct 1995) at 1  In making this pronouncement,

 EPA has stressed:

             Lowering the costs of cleanups makes both economic and environmental sense for
             communities, state and local governments, and businesses involved in cleanup
             settlements.  The new reforms will ensure consistency; streamline processes to
             save time and money; create new opportunities for choosing cost-effective cleanup
             options; and do more to protect public health and encourage economic
             redevelopment

 (Emphasis added).  Further, the Agency has made  it clear that where possible, remedial

 alternatives should be based on reasonably anticipated  future land use, not on an unreasonable use

 for which the site was never and will likely never be appropriate  See "Land Use in the CERCLA

 Remedy Selection Process." OSWER Directive No 9355 7-04 at 2 (May 25,  1995).
                                         - 13 -
-------
              In addition to making "common sense" cleanup decisions, EPA has also supported




state-led redevelopment programs aimed at bringing contaminated sites back into productive use




through its brownfields funding initiative  See. e.g.. Memorandum from S.D. Luftig (Director,




EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response) and J Clifford (Director, EPA Office of




Site Remediation Enforcement) to Directors of EPA Regional Superfund Programs re: FY 1995




Superfund Reforms Semiannual Report, February-December 1995 (Mar  13, 1996).  Indeed, the




Agency has stated its continuing commitment  to "encourage the safe and sustainable reuse of




idled and under used industrial and commercial facilities" through state-led brownfields




redevelopment programs  Id at 6   While it is true that many of the state-specific programs




expressly exclude sites on the National Priorities List ("NPL") from participation, the focus of the




programs and  EPA's brownfields initiative is clear -- to return contaminated  sites to economically




viable use  New Jersey is one of the many states with a large number of industrial properties




which, although contaminated from historic operations, could be restored and returned to




productive industrial use  And New Jersey, like a significant number of other states, has




recognized the importance of facilitating the reuse of formerly contaminated properties  See N J




Stat Ann §§  13:1K-6 to 14, N J Admin Code tit. 7, § 26C  GE is not presently suggesting that




the Factory should be remediated under a brownfields program, rather, we point out EPA's strong




preference, in  both the Superfund context and the Agency's support of state brownfield programs,




for returning industrial sites to productive commercial use




              Viewed against this background, EPA's risk assessment and its selected remedial




action at the Site are fundamentally flav-ed and overly conservative  The Agency cannot




demonstrate that its risk assessment is "grounded  in reality" or that the proposed remedial action






                                           - 14 -
-------
is either necessary or appropriate.  For instance, EPA's risk assessment exposure scenarios assume

residential use of the property, though it is clear that the Factory was operated for industrial

purposes for more than eighty years and was improperly and unlawfully converted to residential

use  EPA's proposed remedy, including the building demolition, is equally suspect because the

Agency fails even to consider future use of the Factory for industrial purposes, a purpose for

which the Factory remains well-suited today.  Moreover, EPA assumes, rather than demonstrates.

that remediation to  industrial  standards is infeasible.  As shown below, GE has significant

experience in remediating mercury-contaminated buildings for industrial and commercial use, and

the remedial methods used by GE  at these other buildings can be readily and successfully

 implemented at the  GSAP Site at much less cost than EPA's proposed remedy  For these reason^

 alone, EPA must revisit its risk assessment exposure assumptions and reconsider its proposed

 remedial action for  the Hoboken Site
       C.     EPA's Risk Assessment is Scientifically Unsupportablc. and the Application
              of Appropriate. Risk-Based Exposure Standards Demonstrates that
              Remediating the Site for Industrial or Commercial Lrsc is Protective of
              Human  Health.

              1.     The Derivation of EPA's Stringent Mercury Cleanup Level for
                    Industrial Exposure is Fundamentally Flawed.

              EPA's proposed industrial exposure standard of 0 44 ng/m3 is based on bad

 science  The Agency employed an unusual and unnecessarily convoluted process that started with

 exposure levels for the entire population, including sensitive subgroups, and reverse-engineered

 that standard to derive an impractical workplace exposure number  This is an unconventional
                                         - 15-
-------
approach that was compounded by errors and implausible assumptions, all of which led to an

unrealistic and unnecessarily strict standard

              EPA began its derivation of an industrial exposure standard by using the Reference

Concentration ("RfC") for mercury, a highly conservative general population exposure standard

EPA defines the RfC as:

              an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a
              daily inhalation exposure of the human population (including sensitive
              subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious
              effects during a lifetime.

EPA IRIS Database   EPA's Office of Health and Environmental Assessment derived the RfC by

taking the exposure level (25 ug/m3) at which the Agency considered that some adverse effects

have been reported in workers,  adjusted  for occupational as against general population exposure

(5/7 days/week, 10/20 m3 air breathed/day), and divided by uncertainty factors (10* for assumed

lowest observed adverse effects level ("LOAEL") to no observed adverse effects level

("NOAEL"), 3* for incomplete data set related to concerns about  reproductive toxjcity) (USEPA

 1997)7  Thjs gave a concentration of


                       RfC  -  2Sng/*,'.S/7« 10/20   =   Q3   /w,
                                        10*3
   Thus information is contained in EPA's Integrated Rjsk Information System ("IRIS ')  EPA
 recognizes that "entry of a value in IRIS is not a rulemaking.  Thus, the entry of a value on IRIS
 does not make the number legally binding (i.e., the value is not entitled to conclusive weight) for
 the purposes of Superfund risk assessments  When a lexicological value is questioned in a
 comment on the proposed plan, a written explanation for the  value ultimately se'ected (v-hether it
 is the IRIS value or another number) must be included m the  administrative record." OSVVER
 Directive = 9285 7-16, "Use of IRIS Values in Superfund Rjsk Assessment," at 2 (Dec 21, Iq93)

                                           - 16-
-------
            EPA next modeled the theoretical average daily dose of mercury received by a

worker exposed to a mercury concentration of 45 9 ug/mj (the upper 95th percentile of the

measured concentrations within the building)  This calculation included the assumptions that the

worker breathes 20 mj of air per day while working (rather than the usual 10 m3 as used by EPA

in deriving the RfC), weighs 70 kg, and is exposed 250 days/year:
                uf   L   r u  i ^ n       45 9 MS7"1' x 20 m'/day* 250/365
                Worker Inhaled Dose -  - f-s - £. -
                                                     70 kg
             EPA then derived the "hazard quotient" ("HQ") by dividing the calculated worker

 inhaled dose by the dose received from exposure at the RiC (calculated by simply multiplying the

 RJC value by 20 m3 and dividing by 70 kg — in this case the 20 mj inhalation rate applies to a full

 24-hour day):
               HO  =
                       4S9ug/m3 * 20 w3 x 250/365
                      	70 Ag	
                             0 3 ug/m3 * 20 m}
45.9*250/365]
     0.3      J
 Finally, EPA divided the mercury concentration used in the dose calculation by the HQ to derive

 an occupational exposure standard.
Proposed Mercury Standard   =
                                      4S 9
                                     459^250/365]
                                          0.3      J
                                                      =   0.3 x 365/250  =  0.44ug//nJ
                                          -  17-
-------
              There are several basic flaws and a number of addition*] compounding errors in




EPA's approach  First, the RJC is a general population exposure standard that should not be use




as the basis for setting an occupational exposure level  The RfC is used by EPA to identify a lev<




of continuous exposure (24 hours/day, 365 days/year, for a lifetime) that the Agency believes is




safe for the entire population, including sensitive subgroups, such as children and the elderly.




Because of the conservative assumptions and uncertainty factors included in its derivation,




however, it is not intended, and should not be used, as the basis of an occupational exposure




standard where there is no basis to assume the presence of these sensitive subgroups




              Second, EPA has used an inappropriate inhalation rate for workers that is




inconsistent with established  approaches and normal physiology  EPA does not explain the basis




for assuming a 20 m3/day inhalation rate other than  to offer the conclusory statement that it was




"in accordance with EPA guidance."  Risk Assessment at 3-14  This is a gross exaggeration of




any likely exposure since it appears to assume that either the worker is in the building 24




hours/day (20 m3 is the standard 24-hour inhalation volume generally used by EPA), or is engagec




in non-stop heavy exercise for eight hours/day (based on inhalation rates reported by ICRP 1984




Even workers who do perform heavy exercise take  breaks, with the result that their total air




intake will be less than 20 mVworkday. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that future workers




at this site will breathe any more dunng each workday than the workers in the studies that formed^




the basis of the RfC,  while the procedure used by EPA assumes they will breathe twice as much




EPA's assumption is also out of step with the assumptions used by OSHA and ACGQi both of
                                           - 18-
-------
which are charged with developing standards for occupational risk assessments. These groups

both assume an inhalation rate of 10 m3/day rate for workers'

             Finally, EPA's starting point, the RfC for mercury, is itself based on the

assumption that exposure to mercury at an air concentration of 25 ug/mj is associated with

adverse health effects. In fact, 25 ^g/mj is itself a protective occupational exposure level for

mercury  That is the level adopted by ACGIH and numerous regulatory agencies around the

world,  see infra. Table 1, and GE's evaluation of available health-effects studies shows that the

standard is grounded  in good science, as the following discussion will show.



              2.     Existing Occupational Standards for Mercury Vapor Are Reasonable
                    and Are Supported by the Scientific Literature.

              EPA's proposed occupational exposure standard for mercury is grossly out of line

with well-reasoned, existing domestic and international standards which were developed through

elaborate, independent, and peer-reviewed procedures. GE's analysis of these standards and their

underlying bases demonstrates that EPA should have adopted for the Factory a standard no lower

than the broadly accepted 25 ug/m3 standard  developed by ACGIH

 I'.S. Standards

              The current U S  Federal occupational standard for mercury vapor exposure is the

 Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL") of 100 ug/m3 established by OSHA  OSHA  had adopted a

 new standard of 50 ug/m3 in 1989, but this standard was vacated in 1992 (along with more than
 8  It is also inappropriate for EPA to assume that an individual worker is exposed to mercury 250
 days per year   Thjs assumption improperly takes into account only weekends and two \\eeks of
 vacation per year without factoring in holidays
                                          - 19-
-------
400 other standards adopted by OSHA in the same rulemaking) as a result of a ruling by the US




Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. AFL-CIO v  OSHA. 965 F 2d 962 (11th Cir. 1992)




The court concluded that OSHA had not followed the correct rulemaking process, but the




decision did not address the scientific merits of OSHA's standard  Thus, the PEL of 100 ^m5




remains in effect as the only enforceable mercury exposure standard for industrial settings in this




country,  and it is the standard by which compliance is measured   EPA recognizes the OSHA PEL




as an ARAR for the Factory.  FFS at Table 4-1,  p. 40




              In  1973, NIOSH established a Recommended Exposure Level ("REL") of 50




Mg/m3, identical to OSHA's 1989 PEL of 50 ug/mj   Thus, both of the federal agencies tasked




with setting safe occupational standards for mercury have concluded that a standard of 50 ng/mj




is an appropriate,  protective occupational standard for elemental mercury,  even though OSHA's




standard was subsequently vacated in the courts on other grounds.




               The most widely followed standard for occupational exposure to mercury vapor is




the current Threshold Limit Value ("TLV") established by ACGIH (1996)   According to




ACGEH, thus TLV is "intended  to minimize the potential risk of adverse health effects and to




ensure that workers maintain their functional capacity "




              This TLV was established in 1993 as  a result of evaluation by ACGIH




scientists of all available data on the adverse  effects of exposure to mercury.  These data




 include several studies that ACGIH concluded suggest adverse effects at occupational exposure




 levels below the previous TLV of 50 ug/m3  These studies, which also form the basis of EPA's




 RfTT. are discussed briefly in Attachment  1
                                          - 20-
-------
Derivation of ACGIH TLV for Mercury

            ACGIH developed its standard of 25 ng/mj after a careful review of the available

toxicology, epidemiology, and clinical studies evaluating the relationship between exposure to

mercury and adverse health effects.  GE has reviewed the ACGIH standard and has analyzed the

underlying studies.  The results of GE's analysis are fully supportive of ACGEH's standard.

            The data reviewed by ACGIH included most of the studies reviewed by EPA for

its derivation of the RfC.9  ACGIH mentioned the studies of Fawer et al  and those of Piikivi and

coworkers, but there was no explicit indication if (or how) they were considered in the derivation

of the TLV, though in the case of the studies by Piikivi and coworkers, the ACGIH review

emphasizes the study authors' own conclusions that these studies support an occupational

exposure limit of 25 ug/m3

             In addition to the studies briefly reviewed above, ACGIH cites a series of studies

suggesting that there is a "threshold for preclinical changes of CNS [central nervous system] and

kidney effects at 50 jag Hg/g creatinine" in the urine (ACGIH 1996)  This concentration

corresponds roughly to a concentration of 100 ug Hg/liter of urine  Data were also cited

 associating this level of urinary mercury excretion with an  average airborne exposure level of

 about 41 pg/m3

             ACGIH also cites several studies from the early 1970s that correlate neurologic

 effects and kidney  damage with exposures resulting in urinary levels above 100  ug Hg/liter of
   ACGIH did not rely on Ngim et al  1992 and Liang et al.  1993, which EPA did consider in
 developing the RfC for mercury  However, these two studies are the least supportive of a finding
 of adverse effects at exposure levels as low as 25 ug/m3. because of the limitations in the
 characterization of exposure associated with reported effects; as discussed above.
                                          -21 -
-------
urine, but notes that these studies did not use the most sensitive measures of effects, such ts




finger tremor (Smith et al  1970; El-Sadik and El-Dakhakhny 1970; Vroom and Greer 1972).




              Many subsequent studies, however, also support the suggestion that adverse




effects occur only at mercury exposure levels resulting in urinary concentrations above 50 ug




Hg/g creatinine or 100 ug Hg/liter of urine. (Lauwerys and Buchet 1973; Foa et al. 1976; Langolf




et al. 1978, Levine et al. 1979  1982, Buchet et al. 1980; Williamson et al 1982, Roels et al. 1982,




 1985, 1987,  1989, Albers et al 1982, 1988, Stonard 1983, Meyer et al. 1984; Roels et al. 1985,




 1987, 1989, Bunn et aJ  1986; Rosenman et al  1986; Barregard et  al  1988)  One study by




 Verberk et al (1986), not cited by EPA, reported an association between finger tremor and recent




 mercury exposure, as measured by urinary mercury concentration (in the range of about 10 to 50




 umol Hg/mol creatinine -- about 18 to 90 jig Hg/g creatinine) in 21 workers in a fluorescent




 lamp factory.  The authors equated this level of exposure to an air level  of 17 /ig/ra3, but no




 air measurements were made. In fact, based on the relationship  between air mercury level and




 urinary mercury level in the study of Fawer et al. (1983), the air level would have been about




 50 Mg/m3. Furthermore, the study did not include a control group,  the reported effect was




 slight (r = 0.39), and in contrast to other reports,  the effect was reported to be most strongly




 associated with recent level of exposure  rather than past exposure.  It is  not clear, therefore,




 that this study supports an association between exposure to mercury at less than 50 ng/m* and




 adverse health effects as the study authors suggest.




               Based on its review of the entire body of scientific literature, ACGIH concluded




 that "to protect the CNS and kidneys, a TLV-TWA of 0.025 mg Hg/m3 is recommended."




 Moreover, it is significant that ACGEH's TLV, like the OSHA and N1OSH standards, carries a





                                          - 22 -
-------
"skin* notation. Because there would be no opportunity for dermal contact with mercury at the




Factory if it was appropriately remediated, this would yield an additional margin of safety




compared to a workplace where the air level met the ACGIH TLV but additional skin contact




(leading to a higher systemic dose) was possible.  It is the systemic dose of mercury, not




simply the air concentration, that is critical in determining whether adverse effects might be




produced.




Other International Standards




             The standard-setting organizations of a number of nations, as well as  several




 international bodies, have established mercury exposure standards.  Comparing these standards




 to the ACGIH TLV shows that ACGEH's standard is among the most protective of




 occupational  standards for mercury in the world.  In some instances, these organizations have




 simply adopted ACGIH's standard of 25 pg/m*.  In other cases, however, these organizations




 have conducted independent reviews of the scientific literature, leading them to a result




 consistent with ACGIH's standard. Not one of these organizations has suggested an industrial




 exposure level even approaching the stringency of EPA's proposed standard for the Hoboken




 site of 0.44 /ig/m3.




             Table 1  below lists various national and international occupational exposure




 levels for elemental mercury. Most of these values are as reported by ACGIH (1996).  The




 procedures used to establish occupational exposure standards in different countries are




 described by  Cook (1987). Many countries simply adopt ACGIH TLVs, or World Health




  Organization ("WHO") recommendations, in some cases after evaluation and endorsement by a




  national expert board.  For example, the Australian National Occupational Health & Safety




                                         -23-
-------
Commission ("NOHSC") has adopted the ACGffl TLV for mercury, but the exposure standani




was modified as a result of the review of the Exposure Standards Expert Working Group




(NOHSC World Wide Web site, August 1997).




             Other countries, notably the U.K., Australia, and Germany, have entirely




independent groups that establish their own occupational limits based on expert review of the




relevant data (Cook  1987). In the U.K., for example, the Working Group on the Assessment




of Toxic Chemicals ("WATCH"), a group of experts in chemical safety, examines the




toxicological, epidemiological and other data relating to exposure to a substance and makes




recommendations and forwards them to the Health and Safety Commission which also reviews




them and, after public consultation, establishes an appropriate, health-protective occupational




exposure limit.  In the case of mercury, WATCH identified a threshold for toxic effects of




mercury corresponding to a urinary concentration of 20 ^mol/mol creatine or more, and




equated this urinary concentration to an airborne level of 25 ng/m*.  That airborne level was




adopted as an 8-hour TWA occupational exposure standard ("OES") for elemental and divaleni




(inorganic) mercury.




              Australia has a similar procedure, with review of data by a nine-member




Exposure Standards Working Group who are nominated on the basis of their expertise in




specific occupational health and safety areas.  The recommendations of the Exposure Standards




Working Group are subsequently reviewed by the tripartite Standards Development Standing




Committee and the National Commission. In the case of mercury, the  Exposure Standards




Working Group reviewed and adopted the ACGEH TLV, with the exception that they




recommended deletion of the "skin" notation because they did not consider skin absorption of




                                         -24-
-------
mercury vapor to represent a significant hazard (they did not address skin absorption due to


direct contact with liquid mercury).


             The German Commission for the Investigation of Health Hazards of Chemical


Compounds in the Work Area is an expert group composed of 35 members elected for terms


of three yean by the German Senate, plus four permanent guest members. The Commission


has five working groups with the following respective responsibilities:   (1) establishment of


Maximum Allowable Concentration ("MAC") values; (2) analytical chemistry; (3) evaluation  of


paniculate matter; (4) occupational cancer; and (5) dermal lesions.  The Commission's


recommended occupational exposure limits (MAC values) are published in the official bulletin of

                                                                                     • ,
the Ministry of Labor, and thus become mandatory  For each chemical (including mercury), the


Commission publishes a monograph that describes the derivation of the MAC value and the


human and animal data on which it is based  As with ACGIH TLV values, notice is given one


year in advance of proposed changes in MAC values.


             Importantly, many of the standards set by other nations, like those of ACGEH,


MOSH, and OSHA, have a "skin" notation indicating the potential for a substantial additional


 dose of mercury as a result of skin contact with mercury liquid or vapor   As noted earlier, there


 will be no potential for dermal contact with mercury after renovation at the Factory  Thus, these


 standards are overly conservative as applied to post-remediation exposure in the Factory.
                                         -25-
-------
TABLE 1
National and International Occupational Standards for Elemental Mercury
Standards Organization
ACGIH (US)
N1OSH (US)
OSHA (US)

Australia
Belgium
Canada
China
Egypt
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
India
Mexico
Poland
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
WHO
Mercury Air Standard — 8 Br TWA (jig/m1)
25 (skin)
50 (skin)
100 [50 (skin) stnick down, 1992]

50 (skin)
100 (skin)
50
20
50
50
50 (skin)
100 (skin)
20 ("Target")
50
50
50
50 (skin)
50 (skin)
100 (skin)
25 (recently revised down from 50)
25
-26-
-------
                    3.      Conduiion




             Several compelling conclusions result from this analysis. First, the risk assessment




employed by EPA to develop the extremely stringent industrial exposure standard was critically




flawed. From a scientific perspective, the Agency's analysis used an unconventional and faulty




approach in which numbers initially derived for residential exposure, which were based on




assumptions not applicable to an industrial setting, were modified to attempt to derive an




industrial exposure standard.  In addition, demonstrably incorrect assumptions, such as the




inflated breathing rate for an industrial worker and the presence of sensitive subpopulations,




skewed the Agency's risk assessment. Moreover, the overly conservative assumptions used in the




risk analysis are unsupported and at odds with current EPA policy initiatives directing the use of..




more realistic exposure assumptions.




              It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the result of this slanted analysis is to




 produce an exposure standard that is not only unattainable and excessively stringent, but is grossly




 out of line with the considered analysis of every standard-setting organization in the world that




 has developed mercury exposure standards for industrial settings The proposed industrial




 standard of 0 44 ng/mj derived from the risk assessment is over 200 times more stringent than




 the legally enforceable OSELA standard, and over 50 times more stringent than the




 standard adopted by ACGEH and regulatory agencies in more than a dozen developed




 countries across five continents  GE's analysis shows that the TLV put forth by ACGEH is




 protective in an industrial setting, and indeed that its application to the Factory would provide an




 additional margin of safety because the remediated building would present no opportunity for




  dermal contact with free mercury.






                                           -27-
-------
              Moreover, EPA has not identified any unique factor* at the Factory that justify

departing from established national and international standards. That is, there is nothing in the

possible exposure scenario in the Factory to distinguish it from any other commercial or industrial

setting in a way that warrants adopting a more stringent standard. To the contrary, the only

distinguishing factor cuts the other way:  the absence of the potential for dermal contact in the

Factory (post-remediation) provides an additional margin of safety when those standards are

applied to the Factory

              In short, EPA should have adopted an industrial exposure standard equivalent to

the ACGEH standard of 25 ug/m3 to consider whether remediating the Factory for industrial or

commercial use is protective and achievable. Having established .that such a standard is

protective, we now examine GE's successful remediation efforts at other locations,  \vruch

demonstrate that a standard  of 25 pg/mj is achievable at the Factory.



       D.     GE  Has Had Considerable Eipericnce And  Success In Industrial Mercury
              Remediation.

              In contrast to the Agency's unsupported conclusions regarding technical

infeasibiUry, GE has had considerable experience and success in remediating former industrial

facilities to current  industrial standards which are protective of human health and the environment

Specifically, GE has remediated three former mercury-contaminated lamp plants, all of which

currently satisfy applicable standards governing worker health and safety in a fully operational

facility  (1) the Jackson, Mississippi, Lamp and Glass  Plant, (2) the Newark,  New Jersey, Lamp

 Plant, and  (3) the Cuyahoga. Ohjo. Lamp Plant
                                           -28-
-------
             In  1985-86, GE successfully completed a remediation of its former Jackson Lamp


and Glass Plant.  This plant, located in Jackson, Mississippi, was operated by GE from 1940-


1985  There were two parts to the plant -- a fluorescent lamp assembly operation and an


adjoining glass tube facility  The plant, which is no longer owned by GE, is predominantly single-


floored with a second floor lamp assembly operation. The first floor is concrete, and the second


floor is made of wood. The primary contaminants of concern at the facility were mercury,


cadmium, beryllium and arsenic.  Prior to remediation, the mercury levels at Jackson were in the


range of 70 ug/m3  In the course of the remediation, GE removed the second floor of the  plant,


power washed the walls and ceiling and acid etched the concrete floor and ceramic tile using a


20% nitric acid solution.  At the conclusion of this encapsulation project, the facility satisfied not..


only mandatory OSHA standards but also the recommended standards set by NIOSH and


 ACGIH . The facility is currently used by an electrical contractor and an automobile parts
                                                                                    r

 operation.


              GE has had sirrular success in remediating its formerly owned Newark Lamp Plant,


 located in Newark,  New Jersey  This plant, which  operated from 1907-1984, was previously an


 incandescent lamp assembly facility which used mercury vacuum pumps as part of the production


 equipment  The primary constituents of concern at this plant were mercury, polychlorinated


 biphenyls ("PCBs") and oils.  The remedial project at this facility consisted of the following:


 (1) removal of process equipment, partitions, floor tile and some sections of the wood floor; (2)


 sanding some sections of wood flooring; (3) power washing certain other sections of wood floors


 and all walls and ceilings, (4) encapsulation of the wood flooring; and (5) acid etching the


  Concrete flooring  Like the Jackson plant, at the time of remedy completion, the Newark plant



                                          -29-
-------
met or exceeded OSHA regulatory thresholds and the N10SH and ACGW standards  This


facility is presently used as a small business center.


              Most significantly, GE has safely and effectively remediated its Cuyahoga Lamp


Plant, a facility similar in structure to the Hoboken Factory, to satisfy current industrial standards


This facility, located in Cleveland, Ohio, operated as a lamp assembly plant from 1921-1985.


Mercury lamps were among the types of lamps assembled at the Cuyahoga facility  This plant,


like the Hoboken Factory, is a multi-storied, brick building with wooden floors and concrete and


tile in the basement, and wood beams and floors overhead   The primary constituents of concern


at the facility were mercury, cadmium, thorium and asbestos Mercury levels prior to remediation


ranged as rugh as 35 ng/m3


              Beginning in 1988, GE undertook the following remedial measures  (I) removal


of process equipment and partitions; (2) vacuuming of remaining surfaces; (3) encapsulation of


wood floors and covering them  with plywood and carpeting; (4) painting of walls, (5)  installation


of vinyl wall coverings in some locations, and (6) installation of drop ceilings Despite these
                         V

substantial remedial measures, GE  was able to preserve the historical structure and features of the


building, including the arched windows, wood post and beam supports and the brick and masonry


This building, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and is stilled owned and


operated by GE, currently houses office space, a fitness center and a small  machine shop  At the


conclusion of remedial efforts, it too satisfied both legal and recommended workplace exposure


standards for  mercury, including the ACGtH standard of 25 ng/m3   The facility continues to meei


those standards today
                                           - 30-
-------
            The remedial measures implemented by GE at these three facilities are easily

transferable to the Hoboken Factory  GE has unequivocally demonstrated the technical feasibility

of remediating mercury contaminated industrial facilities, as well as the ability of remediating

facilities to satisfy the federally enforceable workplace exposure standard for mercury set by

OSHA, and the more conservative standards established by N1OSH and ACGIH.  Furthermore,

because the Hoboken Factory is similar in structure and  age to the Cuyahoga Lamp Plant, at

which an industrial remediation has been successfully completed, the techniques previously used

by GE are readily transferable. In short, EPA erred in dismissing remediation to current industrial

standards as a technically impracticable alternative and must reconsider its analysis of this

alternative in light of the information provided above



      E.     Remediation of the Factory to Industrial/Commercial Standards is Cost-
             Effcctive. and Should Save Been Selected by EPA as the Appropriate
             Remedial Action.

             We have demonstrated that remediating the Factory to comply with established

 workplace standards of 25 ug/m3 is protective, and based on GE's experience at similar facilities

 we know it is readily achievable., The costs of remediating the Factory to these levels is

 significantly less than the costs of demolition  As a result, remediation to industrial/commercial

 standards is the most cost-effective option that assures protection  of human health and the

 environment, and this course  should be selected by EPA as the appropriate remedy for the

 Factory.
-------
              The NCP and EPA guidance specifically require EPA to select a remedy that is

cost-effective  As indicated above, 40 C F R § 300 430(f) governs remedy selection at a

Superfund site  Subsection 300 430{fXiiXD) of the provision states, in relevant part, that:

              Each remedial action selected shall be cost-effective      Cost-effectiveness is
              determined by evaluating [three criteria] to determine overall effectiveness:  long
              term effectiveness and permanence, reduction of toxkaty and mobility, or volume
              through treatment, and short-term effectiveness.  Overall effectiveness is then
              compared to cost to ensure that the remedy is cost-effective.  A remedy shall be
              cost-effective if its costs are proportional to its overall effectiveness

(Emphasis added)  During the feasibility study process, a remedial alternative must be screened

out where (1) it provides effectiveness and implementability similar to another alternative but at
                                                                                      • ,
greater cost or (2) the costs associated with the alternative are "grossly excessive compared to its

overall effectiveness " 40 C F R § 300 430(e)(7)(iii); see also "The Role of Cost in the

Superfund Remedy Selection Process," OSWER Quick Reference Fact Sheet at 4 (Sept  1996)

EPA has recently reiterated the importance of cost in the selection of a preferred remedial action

              Cost is a critical factor in the process of identifying a preferred remedy  In fact,
              CERCLA and the NCP require that every remedy selected must be cost-effective

OS WER Quick Reference Fact Sheet at 5 (underscoring in original)  Thus, EPA is obligated to

evaluate the costs associated with remedial alternatives thoroughly and accurately and to select

the most cost-effective  alternative.  Failure to do so may be considered arbitrary and capricious

action inconsistent  with the NCP  Cf.  United States v Ward. 618 F Supp  884 (E D N C  1985)

(defendant may seek  to show that Agency failed to comply with NCP  requirement regarding cost

effectiveness but must also demonstrate that such failure constitutes arbitrary and capricious

action)
-------
             GE estimates the cost of remediating the Hoboken Factory for continued

commercial/industrial use at $2,276,400 See Attachment 2.  Moreover, GE estimates the cost of

demolishing the building to be $4,614,000. /J.'° Thus, the cost of remediating the building to

commercial/industrial standards is $2.36 million -- a full 50% — less than the expense of

demolishing the building. Moreover, EPA estimates the residual value of the commercial building

to be $18 million, which further offsets the remedial costs." Thus, taking into account both the

anticipated residual value of the structure and GE's estimates of the different remediation costs,

remediating the building to commercial/industrial standards would result in more than $2.5

million of expected cost savings  Finally, and importantly, at the end of renovation to

commercial/industrial standards, there will be left standing a usable structure.  This is consistent..

with EPA's current brownfields initiatives to return Superfund sites to productive industrial use

             Because remediating the Factory for commercial/industrial use is protective, is

achievable, and is significantly less costly than demolition, it is cost-effective and under the NCP

EPA is required to select remediation  for commercial/industrial use as the appropriate remedy for

the Factory



       F.    EPA Inappropriately Employed a Residential Exposure Scenario in the Risk
             Assessment.

             EPA is required by the NCP to conduct a nsk assessment that is appropriate for

 the site.  Residential exposure scenarios are not required, but are appropriate only when that is a
    EPA estimates the costs of remediating the building to commercial/industrial standards to be
 S3 142.000, and the costs of demolishing the building to be 54.359,000

   EPA estimates the value of the raw land, after demolition, to be $1  5 million.
-------
realistic future use of the-property. Here, EPA has usumed the Factory is appropriate for

residential use and has conducted a risk assessment to fit that assumption.  There is no

justification for the Agency's approach, however, because it was only through an unlawful

process that thus longstanding industrial property was converted for residential use in the first

place.12

              The NCP directs the Agency to conduct a baseline risk assessment for use in

selecting remedial alternatives. 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(dX4).  The explicit language of the NCP

requires a site-specific risk assessment. Notably absent from the NCP is any requirement that t..v

Agency assume a residential exposure scenario, particularly where an industrial exposure scenario

is more appropriate for the site at issue  EPA has  acknowledged that the NCP does not  mandate

an assumption of future residential land use  55 Fed Reg 8666, 8710-11 (Mar  8,  1990)

(preamble to NCP revisions)  In fact, the Agency has expressly stated:

               The assumption of residential land use is not a requirement of the program but
               rather is  an assumption that may be made, based on conservative but realistic
               exposures, to ensure that remedies that are ultimately selected for the site will be
               protective. An assumption of future residential land use may not be justifiable if
               the probability that the site u;// support residential use in the future is small

Id. (emphasis added), see also Risk Assessment Guidance for Superrund, Human Health

 Evaluation Manual, Part A, Interim Final at 6-7 (July 1989).
 i:  Even if it were proper for EPA to evaluate residential risk, the Agency has devised an
 unreasonably low cleanup goal of 0 09 ^gy'm3 for children for the purposes of the risk assessment :;.,,•
 which is inconsistent with previous residential cleanup levels advocated by the Agency  In doing
 so, EPA fails to explain its rationale for rejecting its earlier cleanup goal of 0 31 ^g/m3 as
 reflected in the Technical Engineering Evaluation for Mercury Remediation at the Grand Street
 Site (prepared by EPA subcontractor Levine-Fncke-Recon) (Mar 1 1, 1997) ("Technical
 Engineering Report") and the Agency's own Risk Based Concentration Table (Apr  19, 1996)

                                           -34-
-------
             Assuming arguendo that the NCP and the 1990 preamble were ambiguous on this




point, recent Superfund administrative reforms confirm that risk assessments must be based on




realistic exposure scenarios  Beginning in early  1995, EPA Administrator Carol Browner




announced a series of Superfund administrative reforms.  One of the key areas covered by the




reforms includes implementation of measures for making smarter cleanup choices that protect the




public and the environment at less cost. EPA Press Release, "Superfund Administrative Reforms"




(Oct. 1995)  The  Agency further stated that it planned to achieve this result, in part, by ensuring




that all risk assessments are "grounded in reality" and make "good use of'real world1 information




about the site and  site inhabitants " Id




              As part of these ongoing reforms, the Agency's Office of Solid Waste and




Emergency Response has issued a directive regarding "Land Use in the  CERCLA Remedy




Selection Process," OSWER Directive No 9355.7-04 at 2 (May 25, 1995), acknowledging




frequent criticism  of EPA's preference for residential exposure assumptions.  The directive is




aimed, in large measure, at eliminating that criticism by instituting a process to ensure that




assumptions regarding future land use are "reasonable."  The directive states, inter alia  "For




example, future industrial use is likely to be a reasonable assumption where a site is  currently used




for industrial purposes, is located in an area where the surroundings are zoned for industrial use,




 and the comprehensive plan predicts the site will continue to be used for industrial purposes " Id




 at 8.




              Although the City of Hoboken did grant site plan approval for use of the Factory




 as residential property -- in effect, a variance from the preexisting industrial use zoning - that




 approval was predicated on the incorrect premise that the property was in compliance with all






                                          -35-   '
-------
applicable environmental laws.  Failure to satisfy a pre-condition to site plan approval such as

compliance with state environmental laws warrants a nullification of the site plan approval.

              In fact, the property was not in compliance with environmental laws at the time of

its sale   NJDEP had cleared the site under ECRA based on the misrepresentations of David

Pascale, and it is clear that the Department's permission never would have been forthcoming had

the parties involved adhered to the ECRA process, and had NJDEP been informed from the

outset that the Factory had been used for the production of mercury vapor lamps and was to be

converted for residential use 1J Indeed, by letter dated December 20, 1996, NJDEP revoked its

previous ECRA negative declaration approval, based on the contarrunation now known to exist.at

the Site u
 13 Regulations promulgated under ECRA contained specific requirements for providing a detailed
 description of past operations and processes at an industrial establishment, N J A C 7 26B.
 Moreover, standard guidance documents in use at the time established standards for due diligence
 that included using standard historical sources back to 1940 and earlier to identify prior site uses
 See "Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments  Phase I Environmental Site
 Assessment Process," Sept 15, 1992 (finalized  in 1993 as ASTM Standard Practice E1527-93)
 See also "The Environmental Due Diligence Handbook," Government Institutes, Inc (March
 1991) (recommending review of records to determine whether the property was ever used for
 industrial purposes and, if so, for what industries, and whether the property was every used for
 manufacturing, processing, or storage of potentially hazardous substances)  After the Partnership
 purchased the Factory, GSAP partner Keough recalled that Cooper Hewitt was listed in the
 successor title search as a prior owner of the property,  and easily ascertained by telephoning the
 company that it had produced mercury vapor lamps at the Factory  Excerpt of Transcript of
 GS.AP Meeting, Aug. 15, 1995 (Attachment 3)

        Had these basic steps in the ECRA process been taken,  the Partnership, and NJDEP,
 would have learned that the Factory had been used for the manufacture of mercury vapor lamps
 That would have been enough to trigger pre-sale testing for the presence of mercury

 14  A copy of thus document was provided to EPA with GE's April 1, 1997 L'AO comments

                                           -36-
-------
             Nullification of the site plan approval causes the property to revert to iu pre-

existing industrial use. Since the industrial use of the property was lawfully existing at the time

the R-2 zoning district was established in 1979, the property may continue to be used for

industrial purposes.  See Hoboken Ordinance § 196-50  Other permitted uses in the R-2 district

include a variety of commercial uses.  If the presence of mercury had been disclosed prior to the

Planning Board's review of the site plan application, the Planning Board would not have approved

the conversion of the property for residential use and the factory would have remained as an

industrial property



       G.     EPA Miscalculated The Soil Eiposure Risks; Soil Remediation At The Site la-
              Not Necessary.

              EPA has also miscalculated the soil exposure risks associated with the Hoboken

 Factory  EPA inappropriately relied on residential exposure assumptions in the first instance,

 rejecting more realistic and more relevant worker exposure scenarios.  Even if it were appropriate

 to rely upon residential exposure assumptions, here too EPA has erred by overestimating soil

 ingestion risks.

              As with EPA's derivation of a clean-up level for the interior of the building, the

 Agency has improperly based its proposed soil remediation on assumed residential use of the Site,

 with exposure of resident children to the soil under the parking lot  As discussed above,

 residential use of the Site is and has been for nearly 100 years inappropriate, and the soil

 remediation calculations based on such a use are needlessly conservative The risk assessment

  document used to support the proposed soil remediation also contains more appropriate, but still
                                           -37-
-------
very conservative, calculations based on potential worker exposure related to industrial usage of

the Site (Risk Assessment at 3-12 and 5-5)  Even these calculations are excessively conservative

because they assume that workers ingest 50 mg of soil from the site each work day, despite the

fact that the soil in question is underneath  an asphalt parking lot  Even with these very

conservative assumptions, however, the calculated hazard quotient for worker exposure to site

soil is 0 08 (Risk Assessment at 5-5)  Because this value is much less than 10, it demonstrates

that remediation of site soil  is not necessary to ensure health  protection under appropriate

conditions of future use of the Site, i.e., non-residential use

               .Assuming that EPA  may appropriately consider residential exposure scenarios for

thjs Site, the Agency is legally obligated to ensure that its assumptions are technically sound and

reflect reality  Thus the Agency has failed  to do  In the nsk assessment EPA assumes, for

instance, that 100 percent of the elemental mercury ingested  would be absorbed through the

gastrointestinal ("OF") tract This assumption overstates the bioavailability of elemental mercury

A recent publication by EPA's Science Advisory Board indicates that mercury is poorly absorbed

through the GI tract and that only as much as 20 percent of the ingested mercury would actually

be absorbed  Mercury Study Report to Congress, Vol  I, Executive Summary, EPA SAB Review

Draft, EPA-452/R-96-OOU (1996)  Correction for this lower bioavailability would reduce nsk

estimates by a factor of five."

               EPA has also used its default residential soil ingestion rates of 200 and 100 mg'day

 for children and adults, respectively, to evaluate potential exposures via this pathway  These soil
 15  EPA has faced similar criticisms for its incorrect assumptions that lead is readily bioavailable.
 including lead compounds found in Superfund mining sites.  The Agency has, under criticism,
 belatedly revised its lead exposure assumptions.

                                            - 38-
-------
ingestion rates are based on findings of tracer element studies, which did not account for dietary

contributions of the tracer elements, such as mercury Binder et al. 1986; Clausing et al. 1987.

More recent studies have evaluated soil ingestion by children aged 1 to 4 years and adults using a

njass-balance methodology.  Stanek et al. 1992. These studies indicate soil ingestion rates for

children ranging from 5 to 200 mg/day with a mean of 50 mg/day and a median of 39 mg/day. Id.

Similarly, studies of adults indicate that mean adult soil ingestion rates are considerably lower than

EPA default values and are on the order of 10 mg/day. Calabrese et al. 1996  Use of these lower

and more scientifically supportable soil ingestion rates would further lower estimated risks due to

this exposure pathway



 [V.    EPA'S ESTIMATED REMEDIAL COSTS ARE NOT ADEQUATELY
       SUPPORTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE  RECORD AND ARE OVERSTATED.

       A.     EPA's Estimated Costs Of Permanent Relocation Arc Suspect and
              Overstated.

              EPA's costs for its preferred remedial alternative are inflated and unsupported in

 the administrative record. Accordingly, EPA has failed to comply with the administrative record

 requirements of CERCLA and the NCP and has frustrated the ability of GE and other interested

 parties to comment meaningfully on those cost estimates

              In the FFS, EPA states that the estimated costs associated with the permanent

 relocation of the former residents (excluding  moving expenses) are $9,915,600  See  FFS at,  e.g..

 Tables 6-4 and 6-5.  EPA has provided no  analysis in the administrative record to support this

 estimate, and thus GE commissioned  an appraisal of the  property  That report, Attachment 4.

 estimates the current resale value of the condominium uruts, without contamination, to be


                                         -39-
-------
between $5,791,432 and $6,295,577." The report does not include an estimated value for the

townhouse.  Assuming a value of $400,000 for that building, the total value would be

approximately $6 2 million to $65 million ~ only two-thirds of EPA's inflated (and

undocumented) cost estimate.

              In fact, even a $6 million value substantially overstates the fair market value of the

condominium units  First, American Appraisal Associates assumed that the units had been fully

renovated, although the various units actually were in different stages of renovation when

abandoned, reducing their value

              Moreover, EPA's estimate of the value of the units is more than two times the

value of the units as evaluated by the owners themselves in 1995  At that time, the Grand

Street Artists Condominium Association secured insurance on the property in the total amount of

$3,990,000   Insurance in roughly the same amount was carried forward as late as November 2,

 1996  See Attachment 5.

              Thus, upon initial review. EPA's cost estimates for permanent relocation appear

grossly overstated and point toward conferring a windfall on the condominium owners However

EPA's failure to reveal the underlying analysis or assumptions makes it impossible for  GE to

evaluate the nature and full extent of EPA's error

              To ensure constitutional due process. CERCLA, like the Administrative Procedure

 Act ("APA"), requires EPA to provide affected parties with notice and a meaningful opportunity
 16 GE commissioned this appraisal solely to evaluate the accuracy of EPA's unsupported
 statement of the costs of permanent relocation  GE does not concede -- indeed disputes -- that
 permanent relocation is appropriate at this  Site, at all, and that the market value of the
 condominium units are the appropriate measure for permanent relocation costs.
                                           -40-
-------
to comment on EPA's proposed remedial actions. See CERCLA Section 113(k)(2), 42 U.S.C.

§ 9613(VX2) (establishing public participation procedures); 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(0(2) (NCP

provision requiring EPA to provide its rationale for preferred remedial action and afford

interested parties an opportunity to comment); see also 5 US C § 553 (notice and comment

requirements for legislative rulernaJting).17 Despite these clear legal obligations, the FFS is

remarkably devoid of any discussion of the underlying assumptions used to develop the Agency's

cost estimate for permanent relocation with EPA making only passing reference to "confidential

appraisals conducted in July 1996." FFS at 118 and 123-24.  Moreover, support for EPA's cost

estimates do not appear elsewhere in the publicly available administrative record

             On June 30,  1997, GE submitted a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request
                                                                                       •
 to EPA, pursuant to 5 U S.C  § 552, seeking to obtain information regarding appraisals of the Site

 prepared by or on behalf of EPA.  By letter dated August 7, 1997, EPA  Region II denied GE's

 request purportedly on the grounds that such information is exempt as enforcement sensitive

 and/or interagency memoranda.  GE has appealed that decision. Attachment 6 is GE's appeal

 letter, and we incorporate those arguments into these comments  Rather than repeat the extensive

 arguments presented in that letter brief here, we simply note that the NCP does not allow EPA to

 hide behind the cloak of these exemptions to exclude material information from the administrative

 record.

             EPA has promulgated as part of the NCP regulations commanding that all

 documents which "form the basis"  for EPA's selection of a response action be included in the
   I'nder the APA, failure to comply with these due process safeguards renders a final agency
 action void ab mitio  E.g., Piclcus v  United States Bd of Parole. 507 F 2d 1107 (D C Cir  1974)
 (invalidating agency rule for failure to satisfy APA requirements).
                                           41-
-------
"full" administrative record. 40 C.F.R. § 300 810. This include* dnft documents, internal

memoranda and the day-to-day notes of staff where such documents contain information that waji'1

considered by the Agency and that information is not included in any other document in the

administrative record  40 C F R. § 300.810(b).  Moreover, although EPA claims that certain

documents, such as "privileged" and "confidential" information, may be excluded from the

administrative record, EPA must summarize disclosable portions of such documents to the extent*

feasible  40 C.F.R. §§ 300 810(c) and (d). The  Agency itself has recognized that the language  js|

presently contained in the NCP is not intended:
              to exclude from the record all documents containing information which the
              considered in choosing the response action but did not rely on   Rather, EPA
              intends that the "form the basis for selection" language embody general principlesiaiiirclc
              of administrative law concerning compilation of administrative records for agency
              decisions

 58 Fed Reg 53688, 53692-93 (Oct  18, 1993).

              EPA's unilateral abrogation of these basic  procedural protections prevents GE anc^.

 other commemors from fully evaluating EPA's cost assumptions and, consequently, constitutes

 arbitrary and capricious agency action on behalf of the Agency subject to judicial scrutiny under

 CERCLA Sections 1 13(h) and 0), 42 USC §§ 9613(h)  and (j)  If EPA does not cure this

 serious deficiency in the FFS and PRAP, it will not be able to  recover response costs for at least

 this portion of its preferred remedy nor successfully seek  to compel others to bear those costs in ,(|

 the first instance under CERCLA Section 106

              Despite thus fundamental flaw, GE observes three deficiencies in the cost estimate,

 First, EPA's cost estimate grossly overstates the actual out-of-pocket expenses of the owners

 The Partnership initially purchased the Site for $1  2 million  .Although they invested some


                                           - 42 -
-------
amounts toward renovations, the totaJ of the initial investment plus the costs of renovation is




clearly much less than the nearly $10 million that EPA proposes to pay to the owners.  EPA has




based its estimate not on the relatively modest investments made by the former residents, but on




the costs of purchasing new properties.  In essence, EPA proposes to pay to a group of




speculative real estate investors - person* who at the very least made a demonstrabty bad




investment and, in fact, purchased their condominium units with specific knowledge of mercury




contamination at the Site — for the lost  profits of their enterprise That is completely




inappropriate and a misuse of public funds-




              Second, EPA has apparently not reduced the cost of permanent relocation to take




into account the amount of insurance coverage available to the displaced former residents.  Any^




permanent relocation effort undertaken by EPA is governed by the Uniform Relocation Assistance




Regulations. 49 C F R Part 24, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA")




regulations, 44 C F R Part 221, which  must be read in concert with  EPA's CERCLA remedial




authority  FEMA regulations require an agency to reduce relocation benefits by the amount of




available insurance, and expressly forbid an agency from providing duplicative benefits (either




 from other governmental entities or private sources) to displaced persons.  44 C F R. §§  220 4,




 221  5  Because the FFS and PRAP do not indicate whether EPA has considered the availability




 of other benefits and taken such "duplicative" benefits into account,  it is impossible to evaluate the




 propriety of EPA's estimate for permanent relocation costs.




              The third flaw in EPA's  cost estimate is that it assumes, without explanation, that




 the residual value of the land after demolition (estimated by EPA to  be $1,568.000) will be




 available to offset response costs. Under Section 104(j) of CERCLA, 42 U S C  § 9604(j), when






                                          -43-
-------
EPA "takes" property for remedial action, the State, in this case New Jersey, must agree to take nil

title to the property following remediation  The FFS and the PRAP do not indicate how the    
-------
of the site is unnecessary and, thus, the costs associated with that remediation should be deleted

from the costs of remediating the Factory to current industrial standards  Even if EPA ultimately

selects its preferred remedy for the site -- remediation to residential standards - the Agency must

reevaluate the level of soil remediation required, if any, taking into consideration prevailing

scientific risk assumptions, rather than the Agency's outdated, default assumptions- regarding

mercury ingestion of soils.



       C.     EPA Has Also Overstated  The Costs Of Remediating The Building For
              Residential Reoccupancy.

              The arbitrary  and capricious nature of EPA's preferred remedy for the Site is
                                                                                      * .
further highlighted by  the Agency's apparent attempt to inflate the costs of alternative remedial

options to make its preferred remedy appear more reasonable and cost-effective  In addition to

the serious deficiencies in the risk assessment and PRAP delineated above, EPA has significantly

overstated the costs of remediating the building for residential reoccupancy  For example, EPA

asserts in the FFS and the PRAP that remediation to residential standards would cost

approximately 54,368,000 (including renovations)  This number is inconsistent with the estimate

of $3,245,000 (including renovations) provided to and at the request of the Agency in the

Technical Engineering Report prepared by  Levine-Fricke-Recon only six months ago See

Technical Engineering Report at Table 4  EPA explains the 33 percent increase in the cost

estimate set out in the FFS and  PRAP as the cost associated  with "several steps" necessary to

remediate the building. FFS at  104-105  Notably, the "additional steps" deemed necessary b> the

Agency (e.g.. Cashing all remaining  interior surfaces, including wooden floor joists and support
                                           -45 -
-------
beams and posts, and brick walls, etc., with a tri-sodium phosphate solution to remove din and

grime) are specifically rejected in the Technical Engineering Report as being inappropriate for the

very surfaces for which EPA now suggests they should be used. EPA further states that etching

masonry surfaces with acid or abrasives would be required to remove mercury to the greatest

extent possible. FFS at 64  Yet, nowhere in the Technical Engineering Report does EPA's

contractor identiiy etching the masonry as a viable remediation technology  These additional

defects in EPA's cost estimates serve to elucidate the fundamental  problems in the FFS and

PRAP. rendering them legally and technically suspect.



V.    LIABILITY ISSUES.

              GE has previously demonstrated that the current owners of the Factory and GSAP

are liable under CERCLA See GE's Motion for Partial Judgment  on Pleadings or, Alternatively.

for Partial Summary Judgment  and supporting Brief (filed Sept. 2, 1997), and GE's April 1, 1997

Comments to EPA's UAO." As a result, GE has argued that it is unlawful and improper for EPA

to use Fund monies to pay relocation benefits to liable parties  Id.  Those same liability issues

apply to the permanent relocation benefits now proposed by EPA.  Moreover, GE has explained

that it cannot be held liable for response costs attributable to the intervening acts or omissions of

other parties which have occurred in the half century since GE sold the Factory   For these
 '*  GE's April 1,  1997, comments to EPA's UAO is in the administrative record for the Site  On
 September 4,  1997, GE forwarded to EPA for inclusion in the record GE's September 2, 1997,
 Motion papers  GE incorporates both documents by reference into these comments.
                                          -46-
-------
reason*, u W«U. EPA's proposed relocation remedy is arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance

with law."



VL   CONCLUSION

             Both the statutory language of CERCLA and the implementing language of the

NCP are straightforward - EPA is legally required to undertake a risk assessment which is

grounded in reality, select a remedy which is cost-effective and makes common sense, and afford

interested parties the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the remedy selection process In

this case, EPA has failed to  comply with these legal obligations in its attempt to ensure the

selection of an expedient remedy -- demolition of the Factory and relocation of the residents  As
                                                                                       • •
demonstrated above, the risk assessment and  the FFS which ostensibly form the basis for EPA's

preferred remedy are so fraught with error and so out of line with the reality of this case and

internationally accepted scientific principles and regulatory standards that the PRAP cannot

withstand scrutiny. Accordingly, EPA must correct the serious deficiencies in  both the risk

assessment and the FFS before it can appropriately and fairly evaluate remedial options for the

 Site  An appropriate comparison of alternatives, based on a realistic risk assessment and the

 application of a proper exposure standard, demonstrates that renovating the Factory to

 commercial/industrial standards is protective, is viable, and is cost-effective.
 :" GE recognizes that some of these issues are currently before the court in the private
 contribution action, or may not be resolved until later administrative or judicial proceedings  GE
 reserves the right to assert these issues in any such proceedings.
                                      «
                                           -47-
-------
                                    REFERENCES
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).  1996.  Documentation of
     TLVs, 6th Edition, Revised (CD-ROM version)  ACGIH, Cincinnati

Barregard, L , B Hultberg, A Schutz, and G  Sallsten.  1988  Enzymuria in workers exposed to
     inorganic mercury Int. Arch. Occup. Environ, Health 61 65-69

Binder, S, D Sokal, and D  Maughan.  1986.  Estimating soil ingestion: the use of tracer
     elements in estimating the amount of soil  ingested by young children. Arch, Environ. Health
     41(6)  341-45.

Cabrese, E.J., E J Stanek, P  Pekow, and R.M. Barnes.  1996  Soil ingestion estimates for
     children residing on a superfund site   Ecotoxicol. Environ. Serf, (accepted for publication)

Clausing, P . B  Brunekreef, and J H van  Wijnen.  1987  A method of estimating soil ingestion
     by children Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 59:73-82

Fawer. R F . Y  De Ribaupierre, M P Guillemin, M Berode. and M Lob  1983  Measurement
     of hand tremor induced by industrial  exposure to metallic mercury.  Br. J.  Ind. .\fed
     40 204-208.

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)  1975  Report of the Task Group
     on Reference \fan. Pergamon Press, Oxford

Lauwerys, R P  and J P Buchet  1973 Occupational exposure to mercury vapors and biological
     action  Arch. Environ. Health 27 65-68.

Liang, Y-X., R-K Sun, Y  Sun, Z-Q Chen, and L-H Li.   1993  Psychological effects of low
     exposure to mercury vapor  Application of a computer-administered neurobehavioral
     evaluation system. Env. Res. 60 320-327

Ngim, C H , S C Foo, K.W  Boey, and J  Jeyaratnam  1992  Chronic neurobehavioral effects of
     elemental mercury in dentists.  Br. J. Ind. Med. 49 782-790

Piikjvi, L   1989 Cardiovascular reflexes and low long-term exposure to mercury vapour  Int.
     Arch. Environ. Health 61 391-395

Piikivi, L , and  H Hanninen   1989  Subjective symptoms and psychological performance of
     chlorine-alkali  workers  Scand. J, Work  Environ.  Health 15 69-74
                                          -48 -
-------
Piikivi, L., and U. Tolonen  1989  EEG findings in chJor-tllctli workers subjected to low long
    term exposure to mercury vapour Br. J. Ind Mtd. 46:370-375

Reels, H., R. Lauwerys, J.P Buchet, A. Bernard, A. Barthels, M Oversteyns, and J  Gaussin.
    . 1982. Comparison of renal function and psychomotor performance in workers exposed to
    elemental mercury. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 50:77-93

Roy F. Weston, Inc.  1997. Final Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment:  Grand Street Site,
    Hudson County, Hoboken, NJ.  Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
    n  Contract No. 68-W5-0019.  April.

Stanek, E J and E.J  Cabrese.  1992.  Soil ingest ion in children: outdoor soil or indoor dust9  J.
    SoilContam. 1(1): 1-28.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).  1997  Integrated Risk Information System
     (IRIS). On-line. Office of Health and Environmental  Assessment, National Center for
     Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, Ohio

Williamson, AM., R.K.C. Teo,  and J  Sanderson   1982  Occupational mercury exposure and its
     consequences for behavior  Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 50 273-286
-------
       Summary of Studies Suggesting Effects of Mercury Exposure At






             Fawer et aL (1983)




             Fawer et si. (1983) reported an increase in subtle hand tremor (most noticeable




when under load - with a 1.25 kg weight attached to the wrist) in 26 workers exposed to




mercury at levels measured as averaging 26 ng/mj at the time of the study. The workers included




seven glass blowers from a fluorescent lamp factory, 12 workers in a chlor-alkali plant, and seven




workers from an acetaldehyde production facility.  A group of 25 workers from the same




factories, but never occupationally exposed to mercury, served as controls. Although the




concentration of mercury in the air averaged 26 ng/m3 at the time of the study, the authors note




that the workers were exposed to higher concentrations in the past, and the clearest predictor of




an effect was duration of exposure, not intensity of current exposure (as measured by blood




mercury).  This suggests that previous higher exposures may be the real cause of the subtle effects




seen.




             The authors concluded that "these findings might provide some evidence for the




necessity for improved working conditions."  The "working conditions" the authors were




referring to relate to the then-current TLV of 50 jig/m1




             This study, like the others discussed here, does not take into consideration the




contribution of dermal exposure to mercury that may have occurred, particularly in the past.  It is




thus likely that all of the workers studied were exposed to a higher cumulative mercury burden




than is indicated by the 26 ng/m3 air level measured at the time of the study.
                                           -1-
-------
              PiUdvi and coworken




              These authors studied EEC (Piikivi and Tolonen 1989), cardiovascular reflex




(Piikivi 1989), and subjective symptoms and psychological performance (Piikivi and Hanninen




1989) in Finnish chlor-alkali workers and compared them to matched (by age and sex) control




workers. Most measurements showed no effects, but tome subtle effects on EEC. cardiovascular




reflexes and subjective memory disturbances were reported to be more prevalent among workers




than among matched controls. Air mercury levels were not measured; but average exposure




levels (25-30 fig/m3) were inferred from blood and urine mercury levels.




              The conclusions that can be drawn from these three studies are limited. Piikivi.and




Tolonen (1989) note that "no suggestion of a dose effect relation was found in this  study," and




since exposure was likely higher in the past, as in the Fawer et al. study, any effects seen may havi




been due to earlier higher exposure.




              Piikivi (1989) concludes that "long-term exposure to an average Hg concentration




of 30 ug/m3 of air apparently does not cause notable adverse effects on the autonomic nervous




system The results of the present study reinforce the validity of the atmospheric and  biological




threshold limit values proposed previously" (referring to the WHO recommended value of 25




ug/m3). Similarly, Piikivi and Hanninen (1989) conclude that "no significant adverse effects were




produced by the long-term exposure to mercury vapor at an average mercury concentration of 25




^ig/m3 of air."




              Ngim et aL (1992)




              Ngim et al (1992) report poorer performance on several aspects of a




neurobehavioral test battery  among Singapore dentists exposed to mercury than among a control






                                           -2-
-------
group (univenity tuff}.  The air mercury level (measured using diffusive personal ««
badges) was reported to average 16.7 ug/ms of air. The accuracy of this value is doubtful,

however, because diffusive monitoring badges are only semi-quantitative, and the reported value

.is low compared to the measured mean blood mercury levd of 12.3 yg/I.  By comparison, in the

Fawer et al. study, the average blood mercury level (associated with a measured air level of 26

Hg/mJ) was only 8.3  ug/1.  This suggests that the true average mercury exposure level in the Ngim

et al. study was more like 26 * 12.3/8.3 * 39 ug/mj of air (and/or there was substantial mercury

exposure not measured by air monitoring, such as dermal absorption due to handling mercury, or

inhalation of aerosolized amalgam paniculate generated by dental drilling/polishing).

              AJso,  when the subjects were subdivided according to duration and intensity of
                                                                                    ».
exposure, only those with the longest (mean 13 4 yr) and highest (mean blood mercury 18.6 ug/1)

exposure showed significant effects. By comparison to the measured values in the Fawer et al.

study, the high exposure subgroup would have received average exposure equivalent to:

                            26 * 18.6/8.3 - 58 ug/mj of air.

              This study was not cited in the ACGIH (1996) review, but given the significant

questions raised here, it cannot be considered as  supporting an occupational exposure standard

for elemental mercury of less  than 25 ug/m1 of air.

              Liang et aL (1993)

              These authors evaluated psychological effects of mercury exposure in 88 workers

(19 male, 69 female) in a Chinese fluorescent lamp factory compared to 97 controls from an

embroidery factory using a computer-administered, neurobehavioral evaluation system. Airborne

mercury exposure levels in the exposed group showed a wide range (5 to 190 ug/mj, mean


                                           -3-
-------
33 ng/m1). Significant differences between the exposed and control groups were seen in several




neurobehavioral measures (particularly mental arithmetic, two-digit search, and three measures of




psychomotor performance: visual choice reaction time, switching attention, and finger tapping).




The influence of intensity of exposure (air concentration) was not evaluated, but a relation was




seen between neurobehavioral test performance and duration of exposure to mercery (adjusted for




chronological age).  The lack of analysis of the influence of intensity of exposure limits the




conclusions that can be drawn, but the fact that some of the measured air concentrations were




very high (up to 190 ng/m1), and the reported relation between duration of exposure and




neurobehavioral test performance suggest that current or previous high exposure may be




influencing the results




              This study was also not cited in the ACGIH (1996) review, but given the




significant questions raised here, it likewise cannot be considered as supporting an occupational




exposure standard for elemental mercury of less than 25 ng/mj of air.




              The studies discussed above are summarized in the following table.
                                            -4-
-------
Parameters of Mercury Exposure in Studies of Low-level Exposure to Mercury (<5* •§/•')•


Study

Faweretal (1983)

Piikivi and Tolonen
(1989)
Piikivi and
Hanninen(1989)
Piikivi (1989)

Ngimetal (1992)



n

26

41

60

41

98

Age (yr)

Mean
(sen)
44.0
(23)
38 1
(1.0)
380
(09)
38 1
(1.0)
32 0 (NR)

Range

NR

28-56

26-56

28-56

24-49

Duration of
Exposure (yr)
Mean
(Mm)
153
(26)
156
(14)
137
(07)
156
(14)
74 (0.5)

Range

1-41

5-27

5-28

5-27

0.7-24

AirHg
-------
Liang etal  (1993)
342




(0.7)
NR
104(NR)
NR
330
                                                              (NR)
5-190
ND
ND
ND
ND
' Some values have been converted from the originally reported units (eg , nmol/mol creatinine) to the units shown here for




consistency
 Mean level during examination period of study, long-term average reported to be 30 ng/mJ
n = number of individuals in the study, sem = standard error of the mean, NP = no data, NR = not reported
-------
Project Administration/Management
- Project Development  "
- Staffing Requirements
- Insurance
- Permits
• Project Coordination
. Mobilization / Demobilization

Equipment and Supplies
- Office / Supply Trailer
- Decontamination Trailer
- Personal Protective Equipment (Level C)
- Mercon Products
- Toilet Facilities
- Small Hand Tools and Machines
- Drums / Containers
- Polysheeting
- Air Monitoring / Sairpling Equipment
- Vacuum Systems (HepaFiltration)

Health and Safety
- HASP &. QA/QC Plan
- Medical Monitoring
- Health and Safety Officer
- Health and Safety Monitor

 Remediation / Dismantling
- Installation of a Negative Air System
- Removal of Miscellaneous Furniture &. Appliance
- Removal of Interior Walls (NEty
 - Removal of Interior Walls Against Brick
 - Removal of Finished Flooring
 - Construction of a loading area &. chute   system
 - Vacuuming of visible elemental mercury
 - Application of Mercon products to floors, walls, etc.
 - Removal of each layer of subflooring
 - Construction of temporary flooring
 - Segregation of waste streams
 $20,000.00
  $5,000.00
 $80,000.00
  $5,000.00
$115,000.00
 $25,500.00
  $2,500.00
  $6,500.00
 $19,500.00
 $11,800.00
  $1,000.00
  $3,000.00
  $3,000.00
  $2,200.00
  $6,000.00
  $8,000.00
  $5,000.00
  $3,000.00
 $69,000.00
 $40,000.00
$117,500.00
$141,000.00
$129,250.00
 $70,500.00
 $35,250.00
$122,250.00
$110,500.00
 $38,750.00
$321,050.00
 $58,750.00
 $30,200.00
                    $250,500.00
                     $63,500.00
                    $117,000.00
                    $1,175,000.00
-------
Waste Samplini &. Analytical Analyiii
- Interior walls, partitions, framing
- Wood floors, subfloors.-insularion Sc ceiling
- Wood Members
- Brick Walls
- Concrete floor
- Draeger Tube analysis

Powenvashing with Tri-sodtum Phosphate (2
Applications)
First Application
Set-up scaffolding, safety
Equipment (purchase)
Material &. supplies
Labor - 3 men x 40 hrs. x $40 = $4,800.00
1/2 man x 40 hrs  x $55 =       $1.100.00 (supervisor)
$5,900 units x 14 units

Second Application
Labor less 10%   "
Materials &. Supplies
Reporting
-  Maintenance of Daily Logs / Reports
-  Draft Report / Final Report

Transportation &. Disposal
-  Interior walls, partitions, framing &. insulation
(expected to be clean)
Estimated 300 tons x $60/ton
-  Wood floor, subfloor, insulation and ceiling
(expected to be contaminated with mercury > 260 ppm)
Estimated 700 tons x $360/ton
-  Elemental mercury (vacuumed waste) - Non
Recoverable
-  Waste water (from Powerwashing)
Estimated 100,000 gallons x $50/gal.
                                                                            $6,200.00
 -  Asbestos contained materials
                                                         $19,400.00
                                                         $12,000.00
                                                          $6,000.00
                                                         $62.600.00
                                                        $120,000.00
                                                         $74,000.00
                                                          $4.000.00
                                                         $78,000.00
                                                          $2,500.00
                                                          $7,500.00
                                                         $18,000.00


                                                        $252,000.00


                                                          $1,500.00

                                                         $50,000.00

                                                         $30,000.00
                                                         $40,000.00
                                                                           $198,000.00
                                                                            $10,000.00
                                                                            $391,5CO.(X
Total Estimate for Selective Remediation for
Commercial Use - Main Building
(Estimated with a 25% Contingency)
-------
 'ownhouse
 Remove walls, floors,
 irtitions, furniture, vacuum,.
 jplicarion of Mercon (similar
 i main building)
 Transportation &L Disposal
 alls, floon, partitions (expected
I) be clean) Estimated at 20 tons
 $60/ton
$63,500.00
 $1,200.00
 'otal Estimate for Selective
 .emediation for Commercial
 se - Townhouse
 Estimated with  a 25%
 ontingency)
                                  $64,700.00
-------
Project Adm>nl«tr«tlon/Mjm«9«m«nt
-  Project Development
-  Staffing Requirements
-  Insurance
-  Permits
-  Project Coordination
-  Mobilization/Demobilization
Equipment & Supplies
-  Office/Supply Trailer
-  Decontamination Trailer
-  Personal Protective Equipment (Level C)
-  Mercon Products
-  Toilet Facilities
-  Small hand tools and machines
-  Drums/Containers
-  Polysheeting
-  Air Monitoring/Sampling Equipment
-  Vacuum Systems (Hepa-Filtration)
Health & Safety
-  HASP & QA/QC Plan
-  Medical Monitoring
-  Health and Safety Officer
-  Health and Safety Monitor
                  $225,000
$17,000.00
 $3,000.00
$85.000.00
 $5,000.00
$95,000.00
$20,000.00

 $2,000.00
 $5,500.00
$16,000.00
 $8,50000
 $1.00000
 $2,000.00
 $3,000.00
 $2.000.00
 $4,000.00
 $5.000.00

 $5.000.00
 $2,000.00
$59,000.00
$32.000.00
$49,000?
$98,00
Remediation/Dismantling
-  Installation of a Negative Air System
-  Removal of Miscellaneous Furniture/Appliances
-  Removal of Interior Walls (New)
-  Removal of Interior Walls Against Brick
                 $2,060,00
$117,500.00
$141,000.00
$129,250.00
 $70.500.00
-------
!.  Rernovtl of Finished Flooring
-  Construction of • loading area & chute system
-  Vacuuming of visible elemental mercury
-  Application of Mercon products to flooring, walls, etc.
-  Removal of each layer of subflooring
-  Construction of temporary flooring
-  Segregation of waste streams
-  Demolition 2/3 by hand, 1/3 conventional
-  Demolition basement slab (foundation)
Waste Sampling & Analytical Analysis
-  Interior walls, partitions, framing
-  Wood floors, subfloors, insulation & ceiling
-  Wood Members
-  Brick Walls
-  Concrete floor
 -  Draeger Tube analysis
 Powerwashinq with Tri-Sodium Phosphate
 First Application
 Set-up scaffolding, safety

 Equipment (Purchase)
 Materials & Supplies
 Labor - 3 men x 40 hr»  x $40 « $4,800.00
        1/2 man x 40 hra. x $55 * $1,100.00 (Supervisor)
                               $5,900 unit x 14 units

 Reporting
 -  Maintenance of Daily Logs/Reports
 -  Draft Report/Final Report
 $35,250.00
$122,250.00
$110,500.00
 $38,750.00
$321,050.00
 $58,750.00
 $30,200.00
$715.000.00
$160,000.00
 $19,400.00
 $12,00000

  $6,000.00
 $82.600.00
$120.000.00
                     $9,000.00
                   $120,000.00
                   $10,00000
   $2.500.00
   $7.500.00
-------
                             .
                          > *..X" _^..«..
TOWNHOUSE

-  R«mov« walls, fkxxs, partitions, furniture, vacuum,
   application of Macon (Simitar to main building)
-  Shoring and demolition (w« believe that the townhouse
   shares a common wall with the adjacent private
   building.  Entire building will have to be done by hand
   or small machine.
-  Transportation and Disposal
      -  Walls, floors, partitions, etc. (expected to be
         clean) estimated 20 tons @ $60.00 per toa
      -  Brick (Expected to be contaminated with
         Mercury <260 ppm) estimated 287 tons @ $240
         per ton
      -  Concrete (expected to be contaminated with
         Mercury <260 ppm) estimated 83 tons @ $240
         per ton.
Total estimate for Selective Remediation for Disposal -
Townhouse
(estimated with 25%  contingency)
 $63,500.00

$150,000.00



    $1,200.00


   $68.880.00


   $19,920.00
                   $303,500.C
-------
                                   *C)«D4ATK>N FO* OCMOUTIO'N'
           A Disposal
Interior walls, partitions, framing & insulation (expected
to be dean)
Estimated 300 tons x $60/ton
Wood Floor, sub floor, insulation and ceiling (expected
to be contaminated with mercury >260 ppm)
Estimated 700 Tons x $360/Ton
Elemental mercury (vacuumed waste) - Non
Recoverable
Waste Water (from Powerwashing)
Estimated 50,000 gallons x $0.50/gal.
Bricks (Expected to be contaminated with mercury  <
260 ppm)
Estimated 4,500 tons x $240/Ton
PPE
Concrete (Expected to be contaminated with mercury
<260 ppm)
 Estimated 1200 tons x $240/Ton
Asbestos containing material
                                                        $18,000.00


                                                       $252,000.00


                                                          $1,500.00

                                                        $25,000.00

                                                      $1,080,000.00
                                                         $45,000.00
                                                        $288,000.00
                                                         $40,000.00
                                                                      $1.749.500.00
>tal Estimate for Selective Remediation For
smolition - Main building
stimated with a 25% Contingency)
                                                                     $4.310.500.00
-------
                                GSAP Meeting
                              GSA #30746 8/15/95
TAPE BEGINS WITH MEETING IN PROGRESS

KEOUGH:    "We cm then come to t mutual agreement on a unit price basis for the

extra work.  Okay. And then an officer of the company signed the proposal, okay, and

(Tape Interference)., however, Apex chose to fill it out on their own .... did not sign to

the scope of work. They didn't say they're going to do ... of what our wishes are. They

just filled this out, they put hours; they put the prices down, and they kind of did their own

thing. A new officer—a district manager [of the] company signs their documents  Okay

So this is, you know I—I think this is worthless in terms of something you  want to hang

your hat on. Even though it is a low bid  I called this gentleman and explained to him that

we ... this format  .  meeting tonight which we would decide." (Tape Interference)  .

for reasons that are unknown to me ....  So any other questions? No? Okay. Let me just

go over some information I found out.  I have summed it up in a letter to Ira. Okay.  First

of all, there comes a point of ..   you may or may not know this, but Ira sent a letter to

this gal's attorney notifying her of the work we've done.     essentially .. we found

mercury, and we've got problems, and they may be responsible  Okay We never got a

response to that.  Okay. The other day when I was wading through, entering into the

townhouse, I found tons of letters and stuff. Okay. A lot of it was your stuff, and a lot of

Bobs and stuff. But I found a letter addressed to Cooper Hewitt Electric Company,  and I

remember Cooper Hewitt Electric Company was listed in the title search done when  we

bought the property  two years ago  John Pascale bought it from Cooper Hewitt Electric
                                                                 GSA 130746 (ft/15/95)
-------
Company back in the sixties. So I went into our office, we have a register of companies in




the states, and I found them in Kentucky. Talked to a woman—it's all land of explained




here, that worked for the company at that location for about thirty years, and she




immediately remembered that they made mercury vapor tubes here in this building. The




proper—the factory in Hoboken.  You know.  And so we now have a reason why we're




finding it at this property."




MALE VOICE:      "And was it once part of GE?"




KEOUGH:    "Cooper Hewin back in the forties had evolved as a GE operating




company  You know."




MALE VOICE:      "We know we're going to have to go after somebody it's going to




[have to be them]."




KEOUGH:    "This is the same—this is Cooper Hewitt Museum too.  It's the same




people. So I have contacted today, because of this woman, Elaine [Schrier],  told me that




somebody, she wasn't sure of the author or the title, wrote a paper on the relationship




between GE and Cooper Hewitt Electric Company, and some of the work that was done




here in Hoboken.  There's some type of—and she recalled it, but she said I don't know,




and she suggested I call the museum and ask the library to do a search  And I called up,




and their doing a search of—a quick search didn't reveal anything, but.."




MALE VOICE:     "How about the library?"




KEOUGH:    "It's the Cooper Hewitt Museum's library which is part of the Smithsonian,




 and her terminal is linked to the Smithsonian's complete data base on literature. So her




 quick search  with regards to anything regarding Cooper Hewitt Electric Company as a




 title, or it was a Sperry or something  Faraday, uh Sperdi  Sperdi Faraday was the company
-------
that did manufacture of these sun lamps, okay, which I think is what evolved from the




mercury vapor tubes. Okay. So she says it's gonna—we may find something out in a




couple of weeks. She's gonna to keep looking. Her quick search didn't reveal anything.




She couldn't hang out on the phone with me. Jerry, Ira's been put on notice. I want him




to immediately send off a letter to Pascale and his attorney, and we may possibly then also




send a letter to our insurance company and the various environmental companies involved




with this project. Not only Pascale's environmental company, but REM Associates. For




all this kind of work, you know, it takes money  Okay; and we gotta basically now come




to a decision like on awarding this contract and projecting how much money we're going




to need to do this work."




MALE VOICE:      "For clarity sake the on the bid, as I have read through so to be




clear, that does not include the cost of putting down the plywood floor"




KEOUGH    "Correct.  Correct."




MALE VOICE:      "Which we have elected to subcontract on . ."




KEOUGH:    "That's right.  Because it's been determined that at that point in time when




they removed the encapsulation and abatement was done, the room will be essentially




clean. Okay, so a conventional carpenter can come in and do this work  You don't need




a environmental company to do the work. Okay, thereby we can save some money."




MALE VOICE:      "Right, but that will be an additional expense."




KEOUGH:    "Right. Another additional expense is—I put into this document that we,




 at our own choosing, may have the low bidder or the  bidder who we award this to




 bonded. That will be an expense we must bear, okay. And that could be a couple




 thousand or two more, I'm not quite sure I don't have    . It's usually about,three







                                        3                        GSA 130746 (8/1S/95)
-------
     Appraisal Report
  16 CONDOMINIUM UNITS
      722 Grand Street
     Hoboken, New Jersey

    FAIR MARKET VALUE
      Fee Simple Interest
As of January 1, 1996,
    and July  1, 1997
                  American Appraisal Associates
-------
                              Arr*ric»n Appra/M/ A«OC/*(M'
                                        Sort* 2000
                                       N«w J«fMy Ot540-6«24
                                   T«i«phont (609) 452-2330
                                   F»x     (009) 452-0734
                                                                      September 5, 1997
Sidley & Austin
Washington, D.C.

RE:   Appraisal of 16 Condominium Units
      722 Grand Street
      Hoboken, New Jersey
      Assessor's ED: Block 85, Lots 14 and 15.1
                                                                                     •«
At the request of counsel for the  General Electric Company,  we  have completed a limited
appraisal on the above-captioned properties. The information contained in this report is based on
more complete data, analyses and conclusions  retained in our office file.

Nature of the Assignment
American Appraisal Associates has  been requested by counsel for General Electric Company to
estimate the market value of the fee simple interests is in the appraised properties.

Purpose and Intended Use of the Report
In accordance with  the client's request,  this  report has been prepared to  assist  with certain
decisions being made in connection with a proceeding before the United States EPA (Region H).
It is entirely inappropriate to use this report for any purpose other than the one stated.

Effective Dates of the Appraisal
The effective valuation dates of the appraisal are January 1,  19%, and July 1, 1997.

Effective Date of the Report
The effective date of this  report is September 5, 1997

Inspection Date
The exterior of the  properties was inspected  on July 1, 1997   No interior inspections of the
subject units were performed at that time because the owners would  not permit access.
-------
AmcrUat AfprmtMl Astecimtt                                                           paft
Appraisal Development and Reporting Process
This  restricted  appraisal report  complies with the reporting requirements as set forth under
                          *
Standards Rule 2-2(c) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) for
a Restricted Appraisal Report.  As such, it does not present any discussion of the data, reasoning
and analyses that were used in the appraisal process to develop the appraiser's opinion of value.
Supporting documentation concerning the data,  reasoning and analyses  is retained in  the
appraiser's file.  Toe depth of discussion contained in this report is specific to the client's needs
and for the intended use as stated.  American Appraisal Associates is not responsible for any
unauthorized use of this report.

Furthermore, in accordance with a prior agreement between the client and American Appraisal
Associates,  this report  is the result of a limited appraisal process  in that certain allowable
departures from specific USPAP guidelines were invoked.  The  intended user of this report is
notified  that the reliability of the value conclusion provided may be impacted to the degree ol:
departure from specific USPAP guidelines.  Specifically, to the extent no interior inspection wa*1
made of the subject condominium units, the appraisal process  involved a departure  from Standard!*
Rule  1.

The research tasks performed to estimate the value, as defined herein, involved a thorough searcMw
for sales of comparable residential condominium units in the subject market area.  Comparably
data  were researched  by investigations  of public  records,  the multiple listing service ant'Mi
discussions  with local appraisers, brokers and tax assessors.  The data were verified, in somip
cases, with other real estate professionals and/or the grantor, grantee or their representatives.

Definition of Value and Property Interest Appraised
The value results reported herein reflect a range of market  values for the subject condominium!
units.

 Market Value can be defined as the most probable price a property should bring in a competitiv
 and open  market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the  buyer and seller each actin
 prudently  and knowledgeably,  and assuming the price is not  affected by undue stimulus.  Implic
 in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title fr°(
 seller to buyer  under conditions  whereby:

        < 1  i    Bu\ er and seller are typically motivated;
-------
Amtrtcen Appntot Autdalit
      (2)    Both parties are well informed or well tdvised, and acting  in what they
             consider their best interests;
                         «
      (3)    A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;

      (4)    Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial
             arrangements comparabk thereto; and

      (5)    The price  represents the  normal consideration for the property sold
             unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by
             anyone associated with the sale.

The subject units were valued as if offered in the open market for a reasonable period of time in
which to find a buyer.  We appraised  the fee simple interests  in the properties as residential
condominiums, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances.

Fee Simple Estate is defined as the absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or
estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers  of taxation, eminent
domain, police power and escheat.

Special Assumptions
The subject units have been vacated  due to the existence of environmental contamination. For the
purpose of this appraisal, it is assumed that no contamination exists at the property and the units
are available for sale and immediate occupancy. Were the contamination to be considered in this
appraisal, the values reported herein would need to be adjusted downward.  Also, we have
assumed that all the condominium units have been completely renovated for residential use.  If
those renovations are not complete, a downward adjustment to the market value would  be
required; at a minimum,  this adjustment would  be the amount of  the cost to complete the
renovations.

No interior inspection of the subject units has been made.  Information regarding the genera]
condition, level of finish and quantity and  quality of the fixtures was provided by  representatives
of General Electric.  It is assumed that the information provided is accurate. If this information
were found to be  inaccurate, the values reported herein would be  subject to revision.

Area/Neighborhood Summary
The City of Hoboken is situated witrun Hudson County, New Jersey, approximately 2  miles west
of downtown Manhattan (New York City).  The  subject is in an urban, mostly built-up area
-------

Area/Neighborhood Summary
The City of Hoboken is situated within Hudson County, New Jersey, approximately 2 miles wes
                          »
of downtown Manhattan (New York City).  The subject is in an urban, mostly built-up area
Little  vacant land  remains available  for additional  development in the subject's immediau
neighborhood.  The economic outlook for both the immediate and long-term future of the subject
area is continued stability.

The  subject's neighborhood is developed predominately with older industrial and residential
properties.   Portions  of Hoboken have recently been  revitalized and some older industrial
buildings have been renovated/converted to residential  use. The demand for residential property
in the area is substantial due to its proximity to New York City.
                                                                                     • .
The market for residential condominiums has improved following  a period of stability from 1994
to 1996   Local brokers  indicate  that values increased from 1996  to  midyear  1997  by
approximately 10% to  15%. According to local brokers, there is  strong to moderate demand for
new residential  construction in the area.  Additionally,  minimal vacant residential land is available
for such construction.   The preceding factors should have a positive impact on the marketability
of the  subject properties.

Property Review
A brief exterior inspection was made of the subject building, which is a former manufacturing
facility convened to large residential "loft" units.  Descriptions of the subject building are based
on information provided by the client representatives  (General Electric).

The five-story bnck structure's first floor/basement is unfinished.  The second through fifth floors
each have four residential units.  The subject units range in size from 2,572 to 2,736 square feet
and  each has a different floor plan.  Parking is available on the  northwest  side of the building.
The area and quality of the units are summarized on the  following chart:
-------
Amtrkm Appraisit Associate
Unit
2A
2B
2C
2D
3A
3B
3C
3D
4A
4B
4C
4D
5A
5B
5C
5D
Gross Area
Sq. Ft.
2,736
2,603
2,592
2,676
2,572
2,756
2,592
2,634
2,572
2,722
2,592
2,634
2,572
2,722
2,572
2,634
Interior
Quality*
Low
Low
Average
Avenge
High
Average
Average
Average
Average
High
High
High
High
Average
High
Average
                     *Based on information provided by client

 Constructed in the early 1900s, the building was formerly used to manufacture mercury vapor
 lamps and other products containing mercury.  It is noted that the subject building is reported to
 have mercury contamination.  For the purpose of our study, no contamination or  its possible
 effects on market value have been considered.
 Property History
 The subject building was converted to residential units in 1994.  Most of the 16 units were sold
 for about $80,000 per unit during 1995 as raw loft space. The purchasers then designed their own
 floor plans and had their interior finish constructed.  Unit 2C  was the only unit to be sold after
 bavins some  interior finish constructed. This unit sold on March 30, 1995, for a  reported sale
 price of 5287,000.
-------
America* Afprmistl As*ociau*
Highest and Best Use
For the purpose of this  report, we have assumed  that the highest and best use of the subject
building was for residential use.  We have not made a specific determination of this fact.

Valuation Process
In the appraisal of the subject properties, the sales comparison approach was considered the only
meaningful method of valuation. To determine an applicable range of values for die subject units,
discussions with local brokers and comparable sales and listings were  considered.  The sales,
although not exactly comparable due to the unique nature of the subject units, are believed to be
the best available for use in this analysis.  These comparables are summarized on the following
chart:
-------
Appnisal Ast+ei*tt
Comparable Condominium Sato
Site
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Location
4569th Si
Hoboken
72 Park Ave.
Hoboken
98 Park Av*.
Hoboken
98 Park Av*.
Hoboken
98 Park Ave.
Hoboken
98 Park Ave.
Hoboken
205 Park Ave.
Hoboken
113 Grand St.
Hoboken
222 Grand St.
Hoboken
722 Grand St.
Jersey City
1021 Grand St.
Hoboken
1021 Grand St.
Hoboken
1101 Bloomfield
Jersey City
1101 Bloomfield
Hoboken
1101 Bloomfield
Hoboken
1101 Bloomfield
Hoboken
1248 Bloomfield
Hoboken
Unit Unit Six*
f - So. Ft
43
7-C
2-A
2-6
3-A
PH
10
1
2-E
2-C
1-E
PH-E
A
A
C
O
1
1586
1777
1160
1647
1150
3000
1650
2250
1500
2592
1131
1459
2680
2680
2410
2300
1650
Sal*
Date
Nov-95
Jul-96
Mar-96
Mar-96
Sep-96
Feb-97
Mar-96
Asking
Asking
Mar-95
Sep-95
May-95
Jan-95
Asking
Feb-95
Under
Contract
Oct-95
Summary
Sal* Price par
Pile* Sq.Ft
s s
210.000
285,000
195,000
310,000
212.000
469.000
280.000
425,000
335,000
287,000
193.591
225.000
475.000
479,900
285,000
425,000
235.000
132.24
160.38
168.10
188.22
184.35
156.33
169.70
188.89
223.33
110.73
171.17
154.22
177.24
179.07
118.26
184.78
142.42
^^OA^ffl^vntB
2 bed/1 balh Townhouse styt*
1 block from subject
2 bed/ 2 bath Penthouse unit
wtth Wo* csflna & NYC vt*w
2 b*oV2 ba
-------
The preceding sales and listings reflect a range of sale prices from approximately $111 to $223
per square foot.  Excluding the upper and lower extreme unit values, as is customary,  narrows
the preceding range to $132 to $189 per square foot.  These sales were adjusted as of January
1996  on the basis of information provided by representatives of General Electric with regard to
the interior of a typical unit.  The adjustments were based on a typical unit and did not include
an  adjustment for interior quality which will be considered subsequent  to this analysis.  An
adjustment grid is contained within Exhibit A of this report.

After adjustment, the sales reflect  a range of unit values for a typical unit from $i 16 to $167 per
square foot.  Based on a review of the preceding transactions and discussions with local real estate
professionals (summarized in Exhibit B), it is concluded that the subject  units with a low quality
of finish would fall at the low  end or below the adjusted range and the high-quality units would
fall at the upper end of the range.

Following is a summary of the  concluded value ranges for the subject units as of January 1, 19%:
-------
Pat* 9

Unit
^
2-A
2-8
2-C
2-0
3-A
3-9
3-C
,3-0
4-A
'4-B
•J4-C
'4-0
'5-A
.5-8
5-C
5-0
Total
Price
TotaJ,
Afti
So. Ft
2,736
2,603
2.592
2,676
2.572
2,756
2.592
2.634
2.572
2.722
2,592
2.534
2.572
2.722
2.572
2.634
for Low and
Range Summary
*
Overall
Rating
Low
Low
Average
Average*
High
Average
Average
Average
Average
High
High
High
High
Estimated
H3o.FL
105
105
12S
125
135
125
125
125
125
135
140
140
140
Average | 125
High 135
Average 125
High Ranoe
as of January 1996
Range
t
115
115
135
135
145
135
135
135

Low High
Range Range
t s
287,280
273,315
324,000
334.500
347.220
344.500
324.000
329.250
135 1 321.500
145. 367,470
145 362.880
145 368.760
1 50 i 360.080
135^ 340.250
145 347.220
135 329250
314.640
299,345
349,920
361,260
372.940
372,060
349.920
355.590
347.220
394.690 1
375.840!!
361,930"
365.800 !,
367.470;i
372.940 1[
355.590 •
5.361.475 5,757.15,5'
-------
Amtrlca* Appraisal Ajxxieut                                                        .
As  stated previously, the  values of residential condominiums within the subject market have
increased over the period from 19% to midyear 1997 by approximately 10% to 15%. Considering
the size and unique nature of the subject units and because of comments made  by brokers in
discussions concerning the property, a 10% upward time adjustment was determined to be most
reasonable and was applied to the 1996 values to estimate the values as of July 1, 1997. These
values are summarized as follows:
-------
SV*»** — -^- - T«^" ~



•^— •"^•••••— ••"•^^•B
! Price Range Summary
;,
|i Unit
1 f
12-A
2-B
i2«C
2-0
3-A
J3-8
!s-c
[3-0
'4-A
4-8
4-c
4-0
5-A
5-B
5-C
5-0
Total
Total
Area
Sq. Ft
2,736
2.603
2.592
2,676
2.572
2.756
2,592
2.634
2,572
2,722
2,592
2.634
2.572
2.722
2.572
2.634
for Low and

Overall
Rjtinf
Low
Low
Average
Average
High
Average
Average
Average
Average
High

Estimated
1/Sq. FL
116
116
136
139
135
136
138
138
138
135
High 154
High j 154
High > 1 54
Average 1 38
High 135
Average : 1 38
High Range
^•••••••i


fag* 11

as of July 1997

Range
s
127
127
149
149
145
149
149
149
149
160
160
160
165
149
160
149

Lew
Range
ft
316.006
300,647
356.400
367.950
347,220
376.950
356.400
362.175
353.650
367.470
399.168
405,636
396,088
374.275
347.220
362.175
5.791.432
High
Range
ft
346,104
329.260
364.912
397.366
372.940
409.266
364,912











391.149*
381.942!
434.159,
413,424:'
420.123
424.380 !
404.217,
410.234
391.149:
6.295.577 ,
-------
        Apprdstl
                                     Reconciliation

Based upon the analyses referenced herein, the estimated Market Value Ranges of the fee simple
interests in the properties appraised as of January 1, 1996, are as follows:
Unit
1
2A
2B
2C
2D
3A
3B
3C
3D
value Kange
*
237,000 to 3 15, 000
273, 000 to 299,000
324.000 to 350,000
335. 000 to 361, 000
347. 000 to 373 ,000
345 .000 to 372, 000
324,000 to 350,000
329.000 to 356.000
unit
*
4A
4B
4C
4D
5A
5B
5C
5D
value Range
i
322,000 to 347,000
367,000 to 395,000
363. 000 to 376,000
369.000 to 382,000
360.000 to 386.000
340,000 to 367,000
347,000 to 373,000
329.000 to 356.000
Furthermore, the Market Value Ranges of the units as of July 1,  1997, are as follows:
Lnit
#
2A
2B
2C
2D
3A
3B
3C
3D
v aJue Range
S
3 16, 000 to 346, 000
30 1,000 to 329, 000
356,000 to 385.000
368,000 to 397,000
347,000 to 373,000
379,000 to 409,000
356,000 to 385,000
362 .000 to 39 1.000
Unit
1
4A
4B
4C
4D
5A
5B
5C
5D
Value Kange
S
354,000 to 382,000
367,000 to 434.000
399, 000 to 4 13, 000
406. 000 to 420,000
396,000 to 424,000
374,000 to 404,000
347, 000 to 4 10,000
362. 000 to 39 1.000
This is a limited appraisal because no interior inspection of the subject units was performed.
Should additional information about the subject units be made available, the values reported herein
would be subject to adjustment.
Special Assumptions
The following special assumptions pertain to this appraisal:


The subject units have been vacated due to the existence of environmental contamination. For the
purpose of this appraisal, it is assumed that no contamination exists at the property and the uruts
are available for sale and immediate occupancy   Were the contamination to be considered  in this
appraisal,  the  values reported herein would  need to be adjusted downward.  Also, we have
assumed that all the condominium units have  been completely renovated for residential use.  If
-------
               Ass^tittn
                                                                                    13
assumed that all the condominium units have been completely renovated for residential use.  If
those renovations are not complete, a downward adjustment to the market  value  would be
required;  at  a  minimum, this adjustment would be the  amount of the cost  to complete  the
renovations.

No interior inspection of the subject units has been made.  Information regarding the general
condition, level of finish and quantity and quality of the fixtures was provided by representatives
of General Electric.  It is assumed that the information provided is accurate.  If this information
were found to be inaccurate, the values reported herein would be subject to revision.

This  report was prepared in accordance with, and is subject to,  our Assumptions and Limiting
Conditions and General Service Conditions, which are attached to  and form an integral pan of this
report.

No investigation was made of the title to or any liabilities against the property  appraised.

                                       Respectfully submitted,
                                       AMERICAN APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
September 5, 1997
034090
Investigation and Report by
 Christopher Ef. Murphy
 State Certification No.  RG-01289

 Reviewed By
 By Joseph Rusm. MAI
    Certified General Appraiser.
    State of Ne\v Jersey *RGOO?59
 Anthonv Wells. ASA
Anthony J. Wells, ASA
Vice President
Real Estate Advisory Group
-------
   Exhibit A
Adjustment Grid
    (2 Pages)
-------
ADJUSTMENT GRID

             I 1M.M
Superior
-1000%
Superior
-1000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
-2000%
$12831

3
96
Park Ave
2-A
Hoboken
Mar 96
$195.000
1.160
$iei.io

Equal
000%
S1M.10
Equal
000%
~|1M.10
Superior
-1000%
Superior
•1000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
•2000%
$134.48

4
96
Park Ave
28
Hoboken
Mar-96
$310.000
1.647
$1M.22

Equal
000%
I1M.22
Equal
000%
tlU.22
Superior
1000%
Superior
-1000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
-2000%
$15058

5
96
Park Ave
3-A
Hoboken
Sap 96
$212.000
1.150
$1*4.35

Equal
000%
I1M.3S
Equal
000%
$1*4.35
Superior
-1000%
Superior
-1000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
-2000%
$14740

8
96
Park Ave.
Penttouee
Hotwiiian
Feb-97
$440.000
3,000
HM.M

Equal
000%
S1MJ3
Equal
000%
f1MJ9
Equal
000%
Superior
-1000%
Equal
0.00%
Equal
0.00%
Equal
000%
Equal
0.00%
•10.00%
$14
-------
ADJUSTMENT GRID'
Sale Number
Location.
UntlNumtw
City
Sale Dale.
;Sal« Price:
Building Sizes:
Square Feel:
Price Per Sq Ft.:
' Adjustments
1 Conditions of Sale:
(Adjusted Unit Price:
Time
1 Time Adjusted Unit Price:
Unit Size
; Location:
A(je/ Condition
.Quality of Finish:
Amenities:
Other Features:
Sum of Adjustments:
Adjusted value
Per Souare Foo4.
10
Sub/eel SWfl
Grand SI
2C
Hoboken
Mar 95
$287.000
2.592
(11073

Equal
000%
$110.73
Inferior
500%
$m.2«
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
000%
$11626
1 1
1021
Grand SI
1 E
Hoooken
Sep-95
$193.591
1.131
$171.17

Equal
000%
$171.17
Inferior
500%
$179.73
Superior
-1000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
-1000%
$16175
12
1021
Grand Si
PH E
Hoboken
May 95
$225.000
1.459
$15472

Equal
000%
$164.22
Inferior
500%
$161.»3
Superior
1000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
Equal
0.00%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
1000%
$14573
13
1101
loomfiek) Ave
A
Hoboken
Jan 95
$475.000
2.680
$177.24

Equal
000%
$17724
Inferior
500%
$166.10
Equal
000%
Superior
-1000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
-1000%
$167 49
14
1101
loomfiek) Ave
A
Hoboken
ASKING
$479.900
2.680
$179.07

Superior
-1000%
$161 16
Superior
-1000%
$145.04
Equal
000%
Superior
•1000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
-10.00%
$13054
" " 15
1101
loomAoUAv*
C
Hobofcan
Feb-06
$263.000
2,410
1 116.26

Equal
OOO%
$1112*
Inferior
500%
1124.17
Equal
000%
Superior
-10.00%
Equal
000%
Interior
10.00%
Equal
OOO%
Equal
000%
000%
$124.17
" 16
1101
toonaaWAva
O
Hobokan
rxlar Contact
$425.000
2.300
$164.76

Equal
000%
$1*4.7*
Supwtor
-1000%
tmw
Eou*
000%
Supwtor
•1000%
Equal
0.00%
Equal
0.00%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
•1000%
114967
17
1244
toom*«WAv*
1
Hobohen
Oct-»5
$235.000
1.850
$142.42

Equal
000%
$142.42
Interior
500%
$14».S»
Suparior
•1000%
Suparior
-1000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
Equal
000%
Equal
OOO%
-2000%
$110.64

















American Ap\
I
•^
cr
5
<%
&
5













-------
         Exhibit B
Broker/Investor Survey Notes
         (3 Pages)
-------
                                                                             Page 1
                        Broker/Investor Survey Notes
                         16 Condominium Loft Units
                               722 Grand Street
                             Hoboken, New Jersey
                            Survey Date: July 1997
Contact

Norm* De Ruggiero • Sales
Associate at Riverside Realty
(20D-653-3933
Bob De Ruggiero - Local
Investor/Developer
(20D-617-7111
Jerry Losquadro - Sales
Associate at Murphy Realty
Better Homes & Gardens
(20D-798-3300
Comments

Knows the subject units very well. Very unique units, not much
in the way of comps. Sent data sheet on her new listing at 113
Grand Street.  She said each of subject units is different.  She
feels value of a unit today is in the $350,000  to $400,000 range.

Condominium market is now best it has been in years.  Stable
values from  1994 to 1995.  Values have increased from 10% to
15% from mid 1996 to the present.  This spring-summer  is very
busy.

Has  listings  on several   industrial   buildings   in   subject
neighborhood. He feels the way to value subject units is on $/sq.
ft. basis. Condominiums typically trade in the $160 to $190  per
sq. ft. range. Subject units would be on lower end of range due
to large size and  inferior location.  Knows the subject units very
well. Not much in the way of comps.

Knows the subject units very well.  Very unique units, no real
comps, but  said  use upper end condo sales-large units.  Jersey
City has the Wells Fargo Building.  MLS had a sale and one
listing but they were very low.  Jersey City  is far more inferior
in comparison with Hoboken.  He  feels value today  is in  the
$350,000 to $450,000 range, assuming nice finish, 2 bedroom/2
bath units with good kitchen.

Condo market is now best it has been in years.  Stable prices
from 1994 to 1996.  1997 has seen big increase. Values are up
from 10% to 15% from late 1996 to the present.   This spring
summer is very busy.
-------
Amtrica*
                                                                                  Pott 2
 Dave Bagon- Sales Associate   Knows the subject units very well.  Artists bought raw space for
 at ReMax- Gold Coast Really   $80,000 range and spent from $100,000 to $200.000 to finish
                               them.  Some are very plain, some are spectacular.  He  said he
                               would list a 2,600 sq. ft. unit there with good finish for $300,000
                               to $350,000. He feels over $350,000 to $400,000 is a hard sell
                               due  to  competition with  Brownstone  rowhouses.   Subject
                               neighborhood is not as good u hot area to the south and east of
                               subject.   No  real comps unless one goes  to  NYC  (Sobo/
                               Chelsea/the  Village/Tribecka). He said use upper end condo
                               sales-large units.

                               Values are up from 10% to 15% from mid 1996 to the present.
                               This spring-summer is very busy.
 Marta Logusz- Sales
 Associate at Hudson Harbor
 Realty
 (201 )'-420-1200
  Pam Weiner- Sales Associate
  at Coun St. Realr\
  (20D-420-6656
Knows the subject units very well.  Artists/jewelry designers
bought raw space.  She said newer condos sell for Si70 to $220
per sq.  ft.  Most  condos sell in the $150  to $190 per sq.''ft.
range.  Some of the subject units are amazing and could be worth
$400,000 or more.   No real comps unless one goes to NYC
(Soho/Chelsea/the  Village/Tribecka).  Use Wells Fargo Building
in Jersey City sales and upper end condo sales-large units.

Values are up around 10%  from mid 1996 to the present. They
are very busy.

She and husband owned Subject Unit 2-C, the only unit that was
finished  and  sold before  the mercury contamination in  the
building  became  public  information.   They bought  it wit:
intention of renting it out, which they did. The tenant bought th«
unit from them. She felt it was a fair price, but that the marke
has improved since then. She would put that unit on the market
now for around $350,000.  She said her unit was not one of the
nicer ones -  second floor facing street.  Firush was nice, but no
elaborate.

Very unique units, not much in the way of comps.  She provide*
data on a new sale she sold  at 1101  Bloomfield Avenue, "Th<
Columbia."    She  feels  this  building   is  far  superior  11
design/location to  the subject building.  She  said the best units ii
the subject building today are worth in the $350.000 to $400, OCX
range.  She would list them for under $400.000.

She agrees that the condo market is now best it has been in years
Stable prices from 1994 to 1995  Values  have  increased trcr
 10^ to 15T£ from 1996 to  present. This summer has been bus;.
-------
Amtrican Appraisal Associates
                                                  Past
 Nancy Wykstra- Sales
 Associate at BurgdorffRealry
 (20D-963-4400
 Marie - Manager at
 Burgdorff Really
 (20D-963-4400


 Daniel DePalma - Sales
 Associate at Riverside Realry
 (20D-653-3933

 Debrah Muriaugh - Sales
 Associate at Murphy Realry
 (20D-798-3300
  Hugh MaGuire - Local  .
  Appraiser and Assessor for
  Hoboken
She knows of the subject units.  She said subject neighborhood
is not the best.  It is mixed industrial and next to the high school.
She feels units are worth less than $400,000.  She said $350,000
to $390,000 sounds more reasonable. She said "The Columbia"
at 1101 Bloomfield Avenue is a renovated lodge house that has
very large units and would have the best comps. but they are
superior units in a better building and location.

She knows of the subject units.  She said subject neighborhood
is not as good as other areas to the east and south. She would list
the subject units for under $400,000. She said "The Columbia"
at 1101 Bloomfield Avenue is a much better building.

He said there are no good comps, but said $140 to $160/sq. ft.
sounded reasonable.
She has seen the subject units.  She feels they would be worth
low to mid S300K range.

She said unlike surrounding areas, there was no decline in sale
prices from 1994 to 1995.  Stable prices from 1994  to 1995.
Values have increased from 10% to 15%  from 1996 to present.
This summer has been very busy.

He said the only real comparable units are in New York City but
use big units, upper end of sales range.  He agreed that most
condominiums sell for $150 to $180 per sq. ft.  He also agreed
the subject units should  be at lower end of this range.  He felt
that values in the mid $300K range sounded reasonable.
-------
Amtrict* Afprmbfl A n»ti*u
                         Exhibit C
           Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
                         (4 Pages)
-------
Amtnca* Apprmisal Associates
                 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
                          *
Every attempt has been made to prepare this appraisal report in conformance with the current
regulations set forth by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of The Appraisal
Foundation ("USPAP").

We  have provided  a Restricted Appraisal Report,  intended to comply with the reporting
requirements set forth by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice ("USPAP")
for a Restricted Appraisal Report. As such, the report presents only summary discussions of the
data, reasoning,  and analyses used  in the  appraisal process to develop American Appraisal's
opinion of value.  Supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning,  and analyses has
been retained as pan of our work papers.   The depth of discussion contained in the repoYt  is
specific to your needs as the client and for the  intended use stated. American Appraisal is not
responsible for unauthorized use of its report.

As agreed upon with the client prior to the preparation of the appraisal, this is a Limited Appraisal
because it invokes the Departure Provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice. As such, information pertinent to the valuation has not been considered and/or the full
valuation process has not been applied.  Depending on the type and degree of limitations, the
reliability of the value conclusion provided herein may be reduced. Specifically, at the request
of the client,  the content of this appraisal report has been limited to those data presented herein.
As such, it represents something less than  a full and complete appraisal report.  However, the
substance of the appraisal investigation meets all of the requirements of a full and complete
appraisal assignment and a complete record of all analyses and conclusions leading to the opinion
of value stated herein has been retained in the appraiser's files.

No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in nature. No investigation has been made of the
title to or any liabilities against the property appraised.  In this appraisal, it is  presumed that,
unless otherwise noted, the owner's claim is valid,  the property rights are good and marketable,
and there are no encumbrances which cannot be cleared through normal processes.

To the best of our knowledge, all data set  forth in this report are true and accurate.  Although
gathered from reliable sources, no guarantee is made nor liability assumed for the accuracy of any
data, opinions,  or  estimates identified  as ^eing furnished by  others  which have been  used  in
 formulatm2 this analvsis.
-------
Amtrk** Apprmistt Assodmtt
Land areas and descriptions used in this appraisal were obtained from surveys or public records
and have not been verified by legal counsel or a licensed surveyor.

No soil analysis or geological studies were ordered or made in conjunction with this report, nor
were any water, oil, gas, or other subsurface mineral and use rights or conditions investigated.

Substances such as asbestos, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation, other chemicals, toxic wastes,
or  other potentially hazardous materials could,  if present, adversely affect the value of the
property. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous substance, which may
or  may not be  present  on or in the property,  was  not considered by the appraiser in the
development of the conclusion of value. The stated value estimate is predicated on the assumption
that there is  no material on or in the property  that would cause such a loss in value.  No
responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, and  the client has  been advised that the
appraiser is not qualified to detect such substances, quantify the impact on values, or develop-thc
remedial cost.

No environmental impact study has been ordered  or made.  Full compliance with applicable
federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws is assumed unless otherwise stated,
defined, and considered in the report.  It is also assumed that all required licenses, consents, or
other  legislative or administrative authority  from any local, state, or national government or
private entity organization either have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use which the
report covers.

It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied
with unless a nonconformity has been stated, defined, and considered in the appraisal report.
Further, it is assumed that the utilization of the land and improvements is within the boundaries
of the property  described and that no encroachment  or trespass exists unless noted in the report.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective  January 26, 1992.  We have not
 made a specific compliance survey and analysis of this property to determine whether or not it is
 in conformity with the  various detailed requirements of the ADA.  It is possible that a compliance
 survey  of the property together with a detailed analysis of the requirements of the ADA  could
 reveal that  the property is not in compliance with one of more of the requirements of the act.  If
 so, this fact could have a negative effect on the value of the property   Since we have no  direct
 evidence relating  to  this issue,  v-e  did  not  consider the possible  noncompl'iance  with  ihe
 requirements of ADA  in estimating  the \alue of  the property
-------
Anurtcan Apprwtttt Aoeci**                                                          Page 3
We have made a physical inspection of the exterior of the property and noted visible physical
defects, if any, in our report. This inspection was made by individuals generally familiar with
real  estate and  building construction.  However,  these individuals  are  not architectural or
structural engineers who would have detailed knowledge of building design and  structural
integrity.  Accordingly, we do not opine on, nor are we responsible for, the structural integrity
of the property including its conformity to specific governmenttl code requirements, such as fire,
building and safety, earthquake, and occupancy, or any physical defects which were not readily
apparent to the appraisers during their inspection.


The  value or values presented in this report are based upon the premises outlined herein and are
valid only for the purpose or purposes stated.
                                                                                      *•
The  date of value to which the conclusions and opinions expressed apply is set forth in this report.
Unless otherwise  noted, this date represents the last  date of our physical  inspection of the
property.  The  value  opinion herein  rendered is  based on the sums of the  national business
economy and the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar as of that date.

The  following special  assumptions  pertain to this appraisal:

     The subject units have been vacated due to the existence of environmental contamination.
     For the  purpose of this appraisal, it is  assumed that no  contamination  exists  at  the
     property and that the units  are available for sale and immediate occupancy. Were the
     contamination to be considered in this appraisal, the values reported herein would need
     to be adjusted downward.  Also, we have assumed that all the condominium units have
     been completely renovated for residential use. If those renovations are not complete,
     a downward  adjustment to the market value would be  required; at a minimum, this
     adjustment  would be the amount of the cost to complete the renovations.

     No interior inspection of the subject units has been made.  Information regarding the
     general condition, level of finish and quantity and quality of the fixtures was provided
     by representatives of General  Electric.  It is  assumed that the information provided is
     accurate.  If this  information  were found to be inaccurate, the values reported  herein
     would be subject  to revision.

 Testimony or attendance in court or at any other hearing is not required by reason of this appraisal
 unless arrangements are previously made within a reasonable time in advance therefor.
-------
America* Afpnttd Arocfecn                                                          paft 4
One or more of the signatories of this appraisal report is a member or candidate of the Appraiul
Institute.  The Bylaws and Regulations of the Institute require each  member and candidate to
control the use and distribution of each appraisal report signed by them.

Possession of this report or any copy thereof does not carry with it the right of publication.  No
portion of this  report (especially any conclusion to use, the identity of the appraiser or the firm
with which the appraiser is connected, or any reference to the American Society of Appraisers,
or the designation awarded by this organization) shall be disseminated to the public through
prospectus, advertising, public relations, news, or any other means of communication without the
written consent and approval of American Appraisal Associates, Inc.
-------
Appraisal Associate!
                     Exhibit D
              Certificate of Appraiser
                      (1 Page)
-------
       Affrmtttt Axtofiatts
                          Certificate of Appraiser

I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

    The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.

    The appraisal  contained in this report was made by Christopher D.  Murphy, a
    subcontractor; American Appraisal Associates, Inc., is, however, solely responsible
    for the analyses, opinions and conclusions contained in this report.

    The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions are limited only by the  reported
    assumptions and limiting conditions.

    Neither  Christopher  D. Murphy nor American Appraisal Associates,  Inc., has a
    present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and
    neither has a personal interest or bias with respect to the panics involved.

    Compensation for Christopher D. Murphy and American Appraisal Associates, Inc.,
    is not contingent on any action or event resulting from the analyses,  opinions or
    conclusions in, or the use of, this report.

    The analyses,  opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been
    prepared,  in conformity  with the requirements  of the Uniform  Standards of
     Professional Appraisal Practice of The Appraisal Foundation.

     I have made a personal cursory exterior inspection of the exterior of the property that
     is the subject of this report.

                                                          Christopher D. Murphy
                                                               Subcontractor
                                                       State Certification No. RG01289
-------
ttricut Appraisal Associate
                         Exhibit E
               Qualifications of Appraisers
                         (3 Pages)
-------
A»*rtt** 4wv*fro/ Associates
Petti
            Ctf
                                               Anthony J. Wells, ASA
                                                      Vice President
                                 Anthony J. Wells serves u a Vice President for the Milwaukee
                                 Real Estate Advisory Group of American Appraisal A!
                                 Inc. ("AAA").
                                 Mr. Wells joined the Regulated Industries Group in 1966. After
                                 a two-year term of active duty in the U.S. Army, he rejoined AAA
                                 as  office production manager, maintaining the real estate data
                                 base.  In 1972, he was promoted to real estate appraiser. After
                                 transferring to the Industrial Valuation Group for two years of
                                 cross-training, he returned to Real Estate Valuation Group as a
                                 senior appraiser.  He advanced to engagement manager status in
                                 1980. Mr. Wells assumed management responsibilities in 1987,
                                 was named a principal in 1993 and Assistant Vice President in
                                 1994, and was appointed to his current position in 1995.

                                 Mr. Wells is one of the country's leading appraisers in industri-
                                 al/commercial real estate valuation.  He has served as project
                                 manager on  several  major engagements providing  valuation
                                 services to corporate clients nationwide, in Mexico, and the
                                 Philippines.  Mr. Wells has appraised a wide variety of property
                                 associated with, but not limited to, the following industries: steel
                                 mills, railroads, oil companies, aircraft engine/assembly plants,
                                 electric power, metal fabrication, and consumer  products.  His
                                 experience in unique  properties includes movie studios, televi-
                                 sion/radio stations, large hotels, and airport properties.

                                 Mr. Wells has given deposition and testimony concerning  the
                                 valuation of large industrial facilities and airlines:

                                  General Motors Corporation - May/June 1991
                                  Continental Airlines - October 1991
                                  Security Pacific National Bank - April 1992
                                  American Airlines - April  1992
                                  Ladish Corp. - April 1993
                                 University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
                                  Bachelor of Business Administration-Finance
-------
American Appraisal Associates
                                                                                    '-It.
 State Certifications
 Professional Affiliations
  Valuation and
   Special Courses
  Publications
  Speeches
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, State of Arizona,
 #30660
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, State of California,
 #AG017048
Certified Appraiser, State of Colorado, #CGO 1316669
Geoenl Certified Appraber, State of Coonecticat, 4CQ0838
Certified Appraiser, State of Michigan. # 1201002253
Certified General Real Property Appraiser, State of Minnesota,
 #4001728
Real Estate General Appraiser, State of New York,
 #46000010337
Certified General Appraiser, State of Wisconsin, #188
American Society of Appraisers, Senior Member
 ASA Designation - Urban Real Property
 President, Wisconsin Chapter, 1990-1991; Vice President,
 Wisconsin Chapter,  1989-1990; Secretary, Wisconsin Chapter,
 1988-1989; Treasurer, Wisconsin Chapter, 1987-1988
Industrial Development Research Council, Professional Associate

American Society of Appraisers
 Completed all courses and exams required for ASA designation
Appraisal Institute
 Basic Appraisal Principles, Course LA
 Capitalization Theory and Techniques, Course IB
 Case Study - Urban  Properties, Course 2
 Condemnation, Course 4
 Real Estate Appraisal Principles, Course 1A1
 Standards of Professional Practice
"Appraisal of an Industrial Land Development," Real Estate
 VaJ nation Guide. E.H. Boeckh
"The Black Art of Appraisal," Credit Union Executive Society
Mr. Wells has spoken to the Appraisal Institute1!  Wisconsin
Chapter on large plant depreciation, the Industrial Developmenl
Research Council on the development of a valuation curve tc
monitor ad valorem taxes and industrial real estate valuation, and
before tax managers  of major corporations in the St Louis ar«
concerning industrial  property valuation.  He met with the Henley
Group's international  real estate managers to discuss valuation ol
real estate in foreign lands; in October 1989 he spoke to the Credii
Union Executive Society on "The Black Art of Appraisal." He
has spoken before the Institute of Property Taxation concerning
ditTerer.iiauon of rjai and personal property.
 Mr. Wells has  spoken 10 the Institute of Property Taxation and ic
 the American Bar Ass-ocia -on on the valuation of large industrial
-------
Christopher D. Murphy                    Professional Qualifications

Education

University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida
      B B.A.- Finance

Appraisal Institute Courses
      Real Estate Appraisal Principles              Bask Valuation Procedures
      Capitalization Theory and Techniques         Capitalization Theory and Techniques
      Advanced Income Capitalization              Standards of Professional Practice A and B

Professional Experience

Murphy Appraisal,  Ml. Laurel, New Jersey
Involved in the appraisal of a broad range of commercial and industrial properties throughout the
northeastern United  States  Involved  in  the  analysis of  properties  for the  purpose of  sale,
purchase, financing, and corporate planning.
American Appraisal Associates, Princeton. New Jersey
Valuation Consultant, involved in the preparation of narrative  and summary appraisal reports
covering  a  broad  range  of commercial, industrial, and multi-family  residential  properties
throughout the United States.  Involved in analysis for sale, financing, corporate planning, and
allocation.
 Professional Licenses and Certifications

 State of New Jersey
 Certified General Appraiser Number RG-01289
 Licensed Real Estate Salesperson

 Slate of Petvisyhutua
 Certified General Appraiser Number GA-001212-R

 State of Ohio
 Certified General Appraiser Number  407575
 Professional Affiliations

 Appraisal Institute
      Associate Me.-.iber
-------
Apprtttal Attoctant
            General Service Conditions
-------
       Appraisal Attociatu
                       General Service Conditions
                         *
The services  provided by  American Appraisal Associates, Inc.,  have been  performed  in
accordance with professional appraisal standards. Our compensation was not contingent in any
way upon our conclusions of value. We imtmed, without independent verification, the accuracy
of all data provided to us. We have acted as an independent contractor and reserved the right to
use subcontractors.  All files, workpapers or documents developed by us during the course of the
engagement are our property, subject to attorney work product protection as provided  by law.
We will retain this data for at least five years.

Our report is to be used only for the specific purposes stated herein and any other use is  invalid:.
You may show our report in its entirety to those third parties who need to review the information
contained herein.  No one should rely on our report as a substitute for their own due diligence;>
No reference to our name or our report, in whole  or in part, in any document you prepare and/or
distribute to third panics, may be made without our prior written consent.

We reserve the right to include your company/firm name in our client list, but we will maintain
the confidentiality of all conversations, documents provided  to us and the contents of our  reports,
subject to legal or administrative process or proceedings.  These conditions can only be modified
by written documents executed by both parties.

American Appraisal Associates, Inc.,  is an equal opportunity employer.
-------
                     AffOPDO)LKW TMI POUCV.
                                                     Mr* ft MtrlN* IM C*.
                                                  tox M*
                                                   , NJ  Mtfl-«tM
 trwtf tir««t Artlitt.
 C«*4««lftlM Mt*«I•«!••.  Int.
      ••• 1111
                                                              i.iH.eoo
           AH  risk lMbj•«^ t*
T>< POJCY BE TERtMATm TK CCKPANV WU OT^ T>< COTIONAL NTDOT COITra 8Q.OMT    _
WRTTW MOnCt AND W1L SOONOTWCAT10NOF AKV CHAMQES TO t>€ POUCy THAT WOULD AfFICT THAT
NTDCST. N AOCCK)ANCC WITH T>€ POUCY PROVI90NS OR AS (COURED BY LAW.
   ll  S««««ti«ri
          Uflll
  «lv«ri!4«  CA
                                                                     GSA  00184
                                 GSA000184
-------
CCT »1 '99  04i2Qpn wlu.I*i M.  OC«C*XUY*» CO.



                      WILLIAM Hi CONNOLLY * CO.
                       GRAND SfrREET ARTISTS
                  CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
                       PROPERJTY INSURANCE
                           11/2/35 •  11/2/98
            Blanket BuiWinc,*                          $3,700,000
            Loteof Income and Exua Expense            $ 100.000
            Blanket All Risk Real Property                   ->
             (iubject to policy tsrms fl< conditions)              "        .
            Replacemer '                                       J-  . j
            Agreed Am-                                         l ' ~
            Building Ore       increased Cost
             ofConstruci.cn                           $ 1 00.000 *
            Off Premi*et Power lnterr(jptlon               $   10,000
               D^uctible: S 1.000
                 BOILER & MACHINERY INSURANCE

           Property Damage • Comprehensive           $4,000.000
           Deductible                               $    1.000
           Butinetc Interruption/Extra Expense
            Including Off Premises Utility Failure          $  100,000
           Water Damase                            $   25,000
           Hazardous Substances                     $   25,000
      1 ALTERNATIVE LIMIT OF $280,0^0 IS AVAILABLE
     10/30M
                                                              GSA 37147
-------
                                            FttjUU. CT06431
                                            MOM: 00V 373-32JO DU Com*- 9*239-3210
                                            Tat: (303) 373-2O3 DU COM. ««229-2tfU
                                    August 20, 1997

Ms. Jeralene Green
Freedom of Information Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

             Re:    Freedom of Information Act Appeal: Q2-RIN-1S43-97

Dear Ms. Green:

             Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(aX6) and 40 C.F.R. § 2 114, General Electric
Company ("GE") hereby appeals the denial of its Freedom  of Information Act ("FOIA") request,
02-RIN-l 543-97.  Anne Cromwell of GE submitted this FOIA request to the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region II ("EPA") on June 30, 1997, which requested "a January 1996
technical report prepared by the EPA Region 2 office that includes an appraisal of the property at
722 Grand  Street, Hoboken, NJ" (Attachment 1). By letter dated August 6, 1997, Walter E.
Mugden, Regional Counsel, EPA Region II, notified GE that EPA did in fact have appraisal
reports dated July 1996 but was withholding the requested records on the basis they are
purportedly "exempt from mandatory disclosure by virtue of the 5 U.S.C. 552(bX5), (7XA) and
(7XC) exemptions" ("Denial") (Attachment 2).  GE received the Denial on August 7, 1997, and
accordingly, this appeal is timely. For the reasons described below, the Region's initial
determination should be overturned and the withheld documents provided to GE.

              Specifically, GE requests the release of all three documents in the itemized list of
records being withheld, plus other relevant records EPA apparently has failed to identify.  EPA
has withheld the records claiming that they are (1) "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or
letters which would not be available by law to a party ... in litigation with the agency," 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(bX5), and (2) "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes" that (a)
"could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings," id. §
552(bX7XA), or (b) "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy." Id. § 552(bX7XQ  Based on EPA's limited description of the withheld
records and on its admission that these documents do contain real estate appraisals for  the Grand
Street property, GE believes that these documents are not  exempt from disclosure; and, even
assuming the overall document falls within the claimed exemptions, that EPA must at least
disclose the actual appraisals themselves as segregable portions of these records. Withholding
these records serves no legally cognizable purpose, whereas the release of these records would be
in the public interest and in accord with governmental regulations and policy directives.
-------
MJ. Jenlene Green
Auguft 20, 1997
Page 2

              Although £PA his 20 working days from receipt of this appeal to make a final
determination, 40 C.F.R. § 2.117(b), GE respectfully requests that this appeal be expedited  As
more fully explained below, EPA has issued a proposed remedial action plan (TRAP") for the
Grand Street Artists She ("She"), which has been proposed for listing on the National Priorities
List ("NPL"), under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S C. § 9601 eua^ GE befieves that the release of these records will
provide information necessary, and indeed crucial, to evaluate and comment upon EPA's PRAP
Because GE must shortly submit comments on the PRAP, an immediate and timely resolution of
this appeal is requested.

                                      Backfroand

              Some background regarding the Site1 and the PRAP is necessary to place the
Denial in context. In 1996,  EPA, with the assistance of the Army Corps of Engineers ("ACOE")
temporarily relocated the former residents of the She.  Contemplating an ultimate permanent
relocation of the former residents, in early 1997, EPA proposed to list the Site on the NPL so that
EPA could use its remedial authority for permanent relocation.1 Most recently, EPA issued a
Focused Feasibility Study ("FFS") and the PRAP, which proposes demolition of the building and
permanent relocation of the former residents.  In the FFS, EPA estimates the cost of permanent
relocation to be approximately $10 million.  EPA has provided no support for this cost estimate,
but states in a footnote that the estimate was based on "April 1996, EPA appraisals not reflective
of appraisals to be conducted concurrent to remedial design."

              The S10 million estimate is inconsistent with the very limited information regarding
appraisals that EPA has placed in the administrative record for this Site.  The only information in
the record that purports to support EPA's estimate of permanent relocation costs is a
memorandum dated September 6, 1996, from Thomas J. Geronikos, Army Corps of Engineers
("ACOE"), to the Chief of the Real  Estate Section of the East Brunswick, New Jersey Field
Office of EPA (Attachment 3).J This memorandum supposedly transmitted two competing
 1 The Site is a former factory, owned by General Electric more than half a century ago, which a
 group of artists, the Grand Street Artists Partnership (the "Partnership"), converted from an
 industrial facility to residential condominium units for purchase by the Partnership members.
 After failing to  conduct a proper due diligence and proceeding with the conversion of the factory
 after multiple discoveries of mercury inside the building, the Partnership members in residence at
 the Site were vacated from the building in January 1996.

 1 As of the date of this appeal, EPA has not yet issued a final rule listing the Site on the NPL.

 5 Geronikos is  the recipient of the letters transmitting the real estate appraisals that are being
                                                                            (continued

                                          -2-
-------
Mi. Jeralene Green
August 20,1997
Ptge3

appraisal reports, which arc not included in the administrative record, plus a unit-by-unit
comparison of the two reports, which is included.  Both appraisals estimate the total value of all
units plus the Townhouse unh to be substantially less than $6 million. Even taking into account
the purchase of the adjacent parking lot and other expenses associated with permanent relocation,
the S10 million figure is unsupportable by the materials in the record.

             In light of the limited and contradictory information placed in the administrative
record, GE submits that EPA is improperly withholding records crucial to justifying the
expenditure of public funds. First, as stated, EPA has provided no support for its S10 million
estimate of the cost of permanent relocation and must do so under CERCLA and the National
Contingency Plan, especially in the face of inconsistent data in the administrative record.  Second,
the FFS cites April 1996 appraisals as support for the $10 million figure, whereas EPA claims in
the Denial that the only existing appraisals are dated Lily. 1996.  These glaring inconsistencies
suggest that EPA is cloaking relevant records.  Third, EPA's invocation here of blanket FOIA
exemptions to avoid public scrutiny of its PRAP serves only to cast further doubt on the Region's
proper and legal administration of the Site.  Against this background, and coupled with the legal
arguments below, GE is entitled to access to these records.

                                       Argument

             The FOIA's purpose is to provide full disclosure of government records to the
public. United States Dep't of Justice v Tax Analysts. 492 US 136, 141-43 (1989V Department
of the Air Force v  Rose. 425 U.S. 352, 361  (1976). Because "public disclosure is not always in
the public interest," Baldrige v Shapiro. 455 US.  345, 352 (1982), however, Congress created a
limited number of exemptions from disclosure that must be narrowly construed. Rose, 425 U S
at 361.  In addition, these exemptions are only permissive, and agencies are expected to disclose
technically exempt records when "no important purpose would be served by withholding the
records."  40 C.F.R. § 2.119(a); see id  (disclosure is "encouraged"); Chrysler Corp. v. Brown.
441 U.S. 281, 290-94 (1979). Even when an exemption does apply, however, the statute directs
agencies to disclose "(a]ny reasonably segregable portion of a record .. . after deletion of the
portions which are exempt under [section (b)OM9)]." 5 U.S.C § 552(b).

              In this case, EPA has withheld purely factual reports submitted to the ACOE by
outside commercial contractors concerning real estate appraisals needed to justify EPA's
expenditure of public funds. EPA has withheld these records in their entirety and without any
effort to comply with federal policy of maximum disclosure under FOLA. GE believes that EPA
must disclose these records because they are not exempt under FOLA. At a minimum, however,
EPA must release any and all segregable portions of the records to GE.


1 (  continued)
withheld

                                           -3-
-------
Ms Jeralene Green
August 20, 1997
Page 4

       A.     The Letters Are Not Exempt from Disclosure Under Exemption 5J

              EPA appears to allege that the withheld documents &D within the so-called
"deliberative process" privilege under 5 U.S.C. § SS2(bX5). As a general matter, the privilege
permits an agency to refuse disclosure where the documents "reflect rncommfrtdations and
deliberations comprising [the] process by which governmental decisions and policies are
formulated."  NLRB v Sean. Roebuck A Co.. 421 U.S. 132, 150 (1975) (internal quotations an
citation omitted). In addition, the privilege only permits nondisclosure where disclosure would
inhibit candor in the decision-making process. Army Times Publishing Co v Department of Ajf
Force. 998 F 2d 1067, 1070(DC. Cir. 1993).

              These records are clearly not exempt. First, this exemption, by its terms, applies
only to "inter-agency or intra-agency"  documents.  Federal Open Market Comrn v. MerriH), 443
US. 340, 352 (1979)  Here, the withheld records are not inter-agency or intra-agency
memoranda or letters, but are merely reports prepared by outside consultants and transmitted to
the ACOE Such records do not merit protection because  disclosure would not inhibit the  ••
outsiders' candor  American SocV of Pension Actuaries v  Pension Benefit Guar Corp, No. 82-
2806, slip op. at 3 (D.D.C. July 22, 1983); sec Knight v POD No. 87-480, slip op. at 2-3
(D.D.C. Dec. 7, 1987) (correspondence with contractors not intra-agency).  The appraisal of
property is a common occurrence in the commercial world. It is inconceivable that disclosing thi
steps in what should be a rote process would inhibit the candor of a commercial contractor
retained to provide this essentially factual  information.

              Second, there is nothing "deliberative" about these documents  These are purely
factual reports prepared by real  estate  appraisers. To be "deliberative," records must not only b<
pre-decisional, but also must "express[] opinions on legal or policy matters." Vaughn v Rosen.
523 F.2d  1136, 1143-44 (DC. Cir. 1975). These records  do not express opinions at all, but
merely provide cost appraisals for real estate - analyses routinely done thousands of times every
year by non-legal and non-government professionals that have neither legal nor policy
components.  Such purely factual material is not deliberative and would "generally be available f
discovery." EPA v. Mink. 410 U.S. 73, 87-88 (1973); see also Assembly of C«l v United  Statt
Pep1! of Commerce. 968 F 2d 916, 921 -22 (9th Cir.  1992) (holding adjusted census figures to b
factual and therefore not exempt).

              Third, even if the reports were considered "deliberative,"  disclosure would not
inhibit candor in the decisionmaking process. Federal policy requires agencies faced with
technical  exemptions to determine whether disclosure of the records "foreseeably harms" some
governmental interest. Army Times Publishing, 998 F.2d at 1072; see Attorney General's
Memorandum for Heads of Departments  and Agencies Regarding Freedom of Information Act,
4-5 (Oct. 4, 1993)   In this case, the role of the real estate appraiser should be completely
objective  There would be no incentive for the appraiser to falsify or amplify the appraisals of r<
                                            -4-
-------
Ms. Jenlene Greco
August 20, 1997
PtgeS

estate, and no benefit would inure to EPA in so doing.  Thus, these records cannot properly be
withheld.

              Finally, even if the reports qualified for this exemption, EPA has effectively waived
the deliberative process privilege with respect to any appraisals. As with any prrvflega, tfat
deliberative process privilege can be waived through the authorized disclosure to a non-federal
party. North Dtltoti v Andrut. 581 F.2d 177, !79(8thCir. 1978V Mead Pita Central Inc v
Department of Air Force. 566 F.2d 242, 253-54 (D.C. Or. 1977). Here, EPA has released the
one record related to these appraisals that is arguably •deliberative" - the ACOE September 1996
memorandum to EPA transmitting and comparing the appraisal reports and recommending to
EPA one over the other. As discussed above, this document is in the public administrative record
By releasing this record to the public, EPA has waived the privilege with respect to any
underlying appraisal reports.

              EPA has also waived the privilege by expressly referring to and incorporating real
estate appraisals in the FFS. A  deliberative record may lose its protection if a final decisionmaker
adopts or incorporates by reference the otherwise exempt record. In particular, implicit
incorporation or adoption may be found where a decisionmaker accepts a recommendation
without providing a basis for that decision.  American Soc*y of Pension Actuaries v IRS, 746 F
Supp. 188, 191 (D.D.C. 1990). Here, EPA expressly adopted as the basis for its permanent
relocation cost estimate "April  1996" appraisals, without providing the actual appraisal figures or
an explanation of the reliability  of those figures.  Because EPA expressly incorporated by
reference appraisals conducted  in 1996, EPA has waived any privilege with respect to those
appraisals.

              Because these letters are not exempt from disclosure,  EPA must release them to
GE.

       B.     The Letters Are Not Exempt From Disclosure Under  Exemption 7.

              The requested appraisal reports are not exempt either from disclosure by 5 U S C
 § 552(bX7XA) or (7)(C).  In order to be exempt under section 552(bX7), records must contain
 "information compiled for law enforcement purposes." LL These appraisals do not relate in any
 way to "law enforcement." They provide EPA with factual information which is being used by
 EPA in carrying out an essentially administrative function — selection of a Superfund remedy that
 EPA has proposed will provide for the provision of permanent relocation. Not only is the
 Superrund remedy selection process an essentially public process, but EPA is required by the
 statute and its own regulations  to establish a public record supporting its  choice of remedy and to
 demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of its proposed remedy.
                                           -5-
-------
Ms. Jeralene Green
August 20, 1997
Page 6

              Even assuming these records were "compiled for law enforcement purpose*, * EPA
cannot categorically withhold them. Under section 552(bX7), cs with section 552(bX5), EPA
miy withhold such records only if disclosure could resuh in some "foreseeable harm."  Attorney
General's Memorandum at 4-5 (Oct. 4, 1993). Subsection (bXT) delineates the types of
foreseeable harm that may justify withholding eoforcemcnt-rdated records. 5U.S.C. §
552(bXTKAKF). In this case, EPA aOeges disclosure 'could reasonably be expected to interfere
with enforcement proceedings" and "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy." li § 552(bX7XA), (C). Neither harm foreseeably exists in this
case.

              First, as discussed above, there are no "enforcement proceedings" with which
disclosure of the real estate appraisals could interfere. The appraisals are related to EPA's
proposed provision of permanent relocation to displaced individuals. Selection of a remedy under
CERCLA is an administrative function, not "law enforcement." Under Section 121(a)  of
CERCLA, EPA is required to select a remedy that provides for "cost-effective"  response, and-is
required to "evaluate] the cost effectiveness of proposed alternative remedial actions." This is
essentially a comparative analysis and, critically,  it must be fully exposed to public scrutiny.
Under section 11300(1) of CERCLA, EPA is required to establish an administrative record
supporting the selection of a response action. EPA is required to provide for public participation
in the remedy selection process, CERCLA section  113(kXlXB), including providing public notice
"accompanied by a brief analysis of the [proposed] plan." CERCLA section 113(kXl)(B)(i)  Th<
analysis of costs is particularly important when EPA proposes permanent relocation, because
permanent relocation is authorized only when it is "more cost-effective than and environmentally
preferable" to other  remedial alternatives, or may otherwise be necessary to protect the public
health or welfare.    " CERCLA section 101(24) (emphasis added). In short, EPA can only
select a remedy — and permanent relocation in particular - after engaging in a public
administrative process that includes justification of the Agency's cost estimates.

               The National Contingency Plan ("NCP") promulgated to implement these statutory
authorities makes clear EPA's obligation to expose its cost estimates to public critique. Under the
NCP, cost is one of the "primary balancing criteria" that EPA uses to evaluate alternative
remedies.  40 C.F.R. § 300.430(f). EPA is required further to "establish  an administrative record
that contains the documents that form the basis for the selection of a response action."  40 C.F.R.
 § 300 800(a).  That record should  include "[d]ocuments containing factual information, data and
 analysis of the factual information, and data that may form a basis for the selection of a response
 action." 40 C.F R. § 300.810(aXl).  Since costs are a critical component of the remedy-selection
 process, particularly when permanent relocation is proposed, there is no way that  EPA can satisfy
 its administrative record obligations without providing to the public the basic information
 supporting its choice of the remedy.  In this case, the appraisals are critical to EPA's proposed
 remedial action, particularly since the only information that EPA has placed in the record is
 millions of dollars apart from the cost figure announced in the PRAP  In short, the remedy


                                           -6-
-------
Ms. Jenlene Green
August 20, 1997
Page?

selection process is an essentially public, administrative process, not a law enforcement process,
and EPA is bound by statute and its own regulations to divulge just the type of information rt is
attempting to shield in this instance.

              Second, no conceivable "harm' could flow from the disclosure of the* appraisals.
The only potential result of disclosure - the one EPA is dearly and Impropaly trying to avoid -
is a challenge to EPA's PRAP Inasmuch is EPA wiD be spending public monies, however, such a
result is the necessary and indeed desired  result in a democratic and open government Even if
EPA believes, looking toward some future action to recover the cost of permanent relocation,
that disclosure might harm such proceedings, the only "harm" again would be scrutiny of EPA's
actions, and EPA in no event would be justified in withholding data that would form the basis of
its cost-recovery claims against private parties.

              Finally, disclosure of the appraisal reports could not "constitute an unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy." The fair market value of real estate is a matter of public
information  The public has ready access to similar information through public real estate records,
including property deeds and tax appraisals. Moreover, the information was not obtained from a
private source, but was objectively determined by an impartial third party. Thus, there can be no
reasonable expectation of privacy for this information.  It cannot be the type of personal
information that FOIA was intended to protect.

              Even if the information were deemed to implicate a privacy interest, EPA must
determine whether a disclosure of personal information is otherwise warranted. In so doing, EPA
must conduct a balancing of the private and public interests involved. Massey v FBI,  3 F 3d 620,
624-25 (2d Cir. 1993). In this case, disclosure serves the public interest of "'openfing] agency
action to the light of public scrutiny.1" Nation Magazine v U.S. Customs Serv.. 71 F.3d 885, 894
(DC. Cir. 1995) (quoting Rose. 425 U.S. at 372), sec US  Dep*t of Justice v  Reporter* Tomm
for Freedom of Press. 489 U.S. 749, 773 (1989) ("Official information that sheds light on an
agency's performance of its statutory duties falls squarely within [FOIA's] statutory purpose")
Here, the public interest in scrutinizing EPA's use of public money and performance of hs
administrative functions outweighs any private interests implicated by disclosure of the requested
appraisal reports. The open decision-making required under CERCLA mandates disclosure of
this informatioa

              Thus, the withheld appraisal reports are not exempt from disclosure, and EPA
should release them to GE.
                                            7-
-------
Ms. JeraJene Green
August 20, 1997
Ptge 8
       C.     At a Minimum EPA Must Disclose Segregtble Portions of the Requested
              Porresnond*
              The mere fact that a record contains exempt information does not authorize EPA
to withhold the entire record.  FOIA mandates disclosure of "[ajny reasonably segregable portion
of a record ...  after deletion of the portions which are exempt* 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)  EPA has
withheld entire  documents on the grounds they contain exempt information. Even assuming the
correctness of EPA's determination that the exemptions ched apply (which GE maintains is not
correct), EPA must redact only such information as is exempt and then provide GE with the
remaining portions of the appraisal reports. Proper redaction of the records would provide GE
with the factual information necessary to evaluate EPA's proposed expenditure of public funds,
and would better permit GE to understand EPA's basis for withholding certain portions.  EPA has
improperly withheld entire records and should, at a minimum, release segregable portions of tho«
records.

       D.     The Public Interest Favors Disclosure

              Finally, the FOIA exemptions are not mandatory, and even if a record falls within
an exemption, it can be disclosed at the Agency's discretion if "no important purpose would be
served by withholding the records."  40 C.F.R. § 2.119(a),  Chrysler Corp.. 441 U.S. at 290-94
The President and the Attorney General have established an express policy under FOIA of
"maximum responsible disclosure of government informatioa"  Attorney General's Memorandurr
at 4-5, sfi£ President's Memorandum for Heads of Departments and Agencies Regarding Freedon
of Information Act (Oct.  4, 1993).  To that end, the Attorney General, applying a "presumption c
disclosure," will no longer defend in district court agency nondisclosures based solely on a
"substantial legal basis," and encourages discretionary disclosures of exempt records whenever
possible.  Attorney General's Memorandum at 4.

              In the Denial, EPA has not even attempted to justify withholding the appraisal
reports. Indeed, no important purpose would be served by withholding them, and, conversely, tr.
public interest would be greatly served by their disclosure.  EPA Region ITs proper use of public
monies in the provision of permanent relocation compels the disclosure of these records.
                                           -8-
-------
Ms. Jeralene Green
August 20, 1997
Page 9
                                    Relief Requested
              For the foregoing reasons, GE respectfully requests that the records listed in the
appendix to the Denial be released in their entirety.
                                              •   *
              Please fed free to contact me should you need additional information.  Thank you
for your prompt attention to this appeal.
                                                Sincerely yours,
                                                Leonard H. Shen
 Enclosures
                                            -9
-------
All* 99'f7  I 1 >9I  PR                                              TO
                                                                                           DC
                                                     309
                                                   Junt 30, 1997

           VIA FACSIMILE # (212) 637-5046
           A U.S. MAE-

           US. Environmental Protection Agency
           Freedom of Inform ation Officer
           290 Broadway, 26th Floor (CD)
           New York, New York 10007
           Ann.: Ms. Shantefla Jackson

                  Re:    Hoboken Grand Street Mercury Sitft

           Dear Ms. Jackson:

                  This is a request for information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, U.S.(
           Section 552, and 40 CFR Part 2. and any other statutes, rules, or regulations entitling me u
           the information/documentation requested.

                  Specifically I request a copy of a January 1996 technical report prepared by the EP
           Region 2 office that includes an appraisal of the property at 722 Grand Street, Hoboken, h

                  I understand the Agency is required by Law to provide a written response to this
           request within ten (10) dayi. Please call me immediately if any of the dctcnptioa provide.
           above requires inierpretatioo,

                  Th« undersigned will pay all reasonable costs of complying with thij request that i
           due to the United States.
                                                    Very Truly Youra,
                                                    Anne E. Cromwell
            cc.  Jane Gardner
                David Thompson
-------
                         ATTACHMENT 2


ai'S?  1710.9  P*                                    TO  SIDLIYtAUtTlN  DC


                UNITeO tTATCS ENVWOfMENTAl PROTlCnON AQENCY
                                 RMlONt
                               tMMOAOWAY
                            NEWYOWC.NY 1000M1M
      CKBTUI1D MAIL
          zcizrt USQUZSTED

  Anna £. cromvell, Paralegal Consultant.
  General Electric Company
  3135 Baa ton Turnpike/ W1-L8
  Fairfield, Connecticut  06431
       Re: rr««doa of Infomation Raquast, &XM f 02-BZV-1S43-97

  D«ar Ma. cronvell:

       This is in raapans* to your stcond Pr*«don of Information
  Act ("roiA") r«qu««t regarding  722 Grand Stra«t Mercury sit«,
  Hoboken, Kev J«rs«y datad June 30, 1997.  Th« United Statoa
  Environaental Protection Agency, Region II ("EPA") does not have
  any appraisals for the Grand Street Mercury Site  ('Site') dated
  January 1996.  However, EPA does have appraisals  for the Site
  dated July 1996, and EPA therefore assuae* that you are seeking
  the July 1996 appraisals.

       we are unable to provide you vith the requested records
  because they are exenpt froa mandatory disclosure by virtue of
  the 5 U.S.C. 5S2(b)(S), (7) (A) and (7) (c)  exemptions.  An
  iteaized lict of the records which are being withheld, along with
  the basis for withholding is provided on the enclosure to this
  letter. '

       You nay appeal this denial by addressing, within  30 days of
  your receipt of this letter, your written appeal to Freedo* of
  Information officer (A-101) , United states Environmental
  Protection Agency, 401 N Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
  Your appeal should refer to the KIN number listed above, the date
  of this determination, and ay name, title and address.
-------
«• »7 17,« F.                                   TO ».DLtr.ftU»T,H ,
        Pleas* contact, catnsrina Garypis at (212) 637-3131,  should
  you  hava any questions concern ing this Bat tar.
  Sinear*ly  yours,
  Walter  B. Hugdan
  Regional Counsel

  Enclosures:     Index of vithheld docunanta
  cc: i/Leonard Shen
       General Electric Coapany
       Mail Stop W1L
       313? Baa ton TurnpiJte
       Fairfield, Connecticut  06431

       Jane Gardner
       General Electric Coapany
       Hail Stop WXL
       3135 Easrton Turnpike
       Fairfield, Connecticut  06431

       Langley Shook,  Esq.
       Sidley & Austin
       1722 Sye Street,  M.W.
       Washington, DC   20006
-------
   8H43  Fft                                             T0  iiDi.iYa.AufTIN DC V.•*
                             OCPAATMCKT OF THI AfUIV
                     •AUMOW MlTajCT. OK AIWT COftM OF
                                    P.O. eox ms
                                •ALTMOM.MO  Z1S0.171I
CfiNAB-RE-EC2JO-12a)                                             6 September 1996


MEMORANDUM FOfc ChieC Red Estate Section, Ntw Jersey Field Office Ease Brunswick.
                         New Jersey*

SUBJECT: 722 Grand Avenue, Hobokfn, New Jersey
1. Attached are two (2) cc?ies of appraiseJrcpora for each iiuir^^
Grind A venue, Hobokea, New Jersey.  The appraisal* were performed by Anthony Lame
Realty Services sad Nationwide Consulting Company, IDC.

2. Both reports were found to be icoeptabte ioMcordance withtbeicopeofthecoctrtct  A
review of each will reveal a difference in the estimated values of each unit* which reflects the
perceptions of each appraiser relative to the value of each individual unit as if "clean."  This
difference is consistent with perceptions of various individual! in the marketplace and reflects
what is to be considered the range of value for subject condominium unhs.

3. Based upon my review, I believe that the values indicated by Anthony Lcma are closer to the
"obtainable' sales price for subject units "as clean," and If available for sale on the market.  The
Nationwide report buttresses the estimate of value prepared by Lama.  A unit-by-wit
comparison is attached.

4. TV r^wvx i>w«i.jrtt™g fh* vmW of tte atfurmre for any tuft otfagr ftan regktefttUl mud
reflecting its fee simple value as a ttefle use property is currently under review at NAD. This
rcpon will b« forj«^wd^ to yo«M soon as his approved. There were two reports of the property
ooaiingkonit basis Cor the sole itasoo of establishing a range of value^ A deuty m receiving
this second report has resulted  in the rather unseemly delay for the delivery of these reports.
Please cocrvcy ray deepest apologies to. the patient and s«i*»rtrw employee* of the
 Environmental Protection Agency, and thank them for me for their patience.
 End                            Thcdnas/.Ocrooikoc, MAI, ASA
 0                              Acting OueC Appmtal Branca
                                                                      4005^9
-------
                                                TO SIDLIYftAUSTlN
 .». MA RJBOIOJT iz - RICOIM  MIBO VZTCKUD
7/1/9*    Lattar  froa L. Coughlan and A. L«na (Anthony F.
          Realty  8«rvio««( Inc.) to T. G«ronlXo» (Xrvy Corp* of
          >MX* fom wivnox»zmt  s u.t.c. 552(b)(5),  (?) (x>  and
              (C)
7/1/96    L*tt«r from L. coughlan ind A, L*aa (Anthony F.  Laaa
          Realty Sarvic**^ Inc.) to T' GtronUco* (Amy Corps of
          BASIS ro* VZTnotDZWOt  5 U.S.C. 552(D)(S>,  (7) (A)  4nd
                                                              t
7/9/96    L«tt*r fro* 0, Noonan  (N»tlonwida Conrultirvj Company,
          Inc.) to w. Epp» (Amy Corps of Snginaara)


          BA8ZP FOR WITHSOLBJW:  5 U.S.C. 552 (b) (5).  (7) (A)  and
-------
flU€ •?'•? ttt43
                                                           TO  tIDLlY»AUlTlN DC P.
         APlSON OF UNIT VAL1TFA
   $24*000
   $31*000
   010,000
   $310,000
   $315.000
   $315,000
   $310400
   $310.000
   $365.000
   $360.000
   $355,000
   $355,000
   $400.000
   $420.000
   $410,000
2A
2B
2C
2D
3A
3B
3C
3D
4A
4B
4C
40
5A
SB
5C
5D
$351.000
S247.000
S30SJOOO
$325.000
$316,000
$299,000
S3 10,009
$299,000
$324.000
$390.000
$364.000
$390.000
$464.000
$459,000
$490.000
                                                                      400530
-------
    ATTACHMENT 4




Administrative Record Index
-------
            REMOVAL ACTION BRANCH
          AUAUMSTKA11VE KELURD

              GRAND STREET SITE

 HOBOKEN,  HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
                    Prepared for:

          Jack Harmon, On-Scene Coordinator
                 U. S. EPA Region 77
                Removal Action Branch
              Edison, New Jersey 08837
                    Prepared by:

Region II Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team
                 Roy F.  Weston, Inc
               Federal Programs Division
               Edison, New Jersey 08837

              DCN #: START-02-F-00134
                TDD #: 02-95-12-0009
                     March 1996
-------
                       GRAND STREET SITE




                   ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE




                            CONTENTS







BACKGROUND & SITE IDENTIFICATION  	SECTION 1.0




REMOVAL RESPONSE	SECTION 2.0




HEALTH ASSESSMENTS  	   SECTION 3.0




PUBLIC PARTICIPATION	  SECTION 4.0




TECHNICAL SOURCES AND GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS	  SECTION 5.0




ENFORCEMENT	SECTION 6.0
FEBRUARY 12,  1997'- REVISION     i
-------
                    GRAND STREET MERCURY SITE
                   ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
                       INDEX OF  DOCUMENTS
1.0   SITE IDENTIFICATION

1.1   Background - RCRA and other information
P.
P.
P.
P.
P.
P.
P.
100001-
100005
100006-
100007
100018-
100023
100024-
100256
100257-
100258
     100259-
     100260
100261-
100262

100263-
100266
Instructions for the Installation of Cooper Hewitt
Electric Lamps, Type Double P, For Direct Current
Circuits, Cooper Hewitt Electric Company, Eighth
and Grand Streets, Hoboken, N.J., undated.

Installation and Operation of Direct Current
Uviarc Laboratory Outfits and Uviarc Test
Cabinets, Cooper Hewitt Electric Company, Hoboken,
N.J., a General Electric Organization, undated.

Instruction Book, Cooper Hewitt Lamps, Type P -
Straight Tubes, Type P - U-Shaped Tubes, and Type
P - M-Shaped Tubes, Cooper Hewitt Electric
Company, Hoboken, N.J., undated.

A Complete Treatise on Industrial Illumination
with Mercury Vapor Lamps, by Mr. George J. Taylor,
B.S., S.M., E.E., Commercial Engineering
Department, General Electric Vapor Lamp Company,
Hoboken, N.J., undated.

Figure 3 - Quality Tool & Die Proposed Sample
Location Map, prepared by Jenny Engineering
Corporation, undated.

Quality Tool & Die Case Summary, undated.
(Attachment: Letter to Mr. David Pascale, Quality
Tool & Die, Inc., from Mr. Kenneth T. Hart,
Assistant Director, Industrial Site Evaluation
Element, New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy  (NJDEPE), re: Negative
Declaration by operator dated December 4, 1992,
February 8, 1993 .)

Quality Tool & Die Case Summary, undated.


Pages from the Sampling and Testing Plan, undated.
-------
P.   100267-   Production  Facilities  List,  prepared by Quality
     100273    Tool  & Die  Co.,  Inc.,  undated.

P.   100274-   Certificate of  Incorporation of Quality Tool  & Die
     100289    Co.,  Inc.,  prepared by Roger R.  Sciorsci,  Esq.,
               February  24,  1940.  (Attachments:  (1)  Annual Report
               by a  Domestic Corporation, Quality Tool &  Die Co.,
               Inc., March 15,  1940,  (2) Notice  to file an Annual
               Report, Quality  Tool & Die Co.,  Inc.,  August  21,
               1959,  (3) Certificate  of Change of Agent of
               Quality Tool  & Die Co., Inc., July 1,  1963, (4)
               Form  12 - Certificate  of Change of Location of the
               Principal Office of the Quality Tool  & Die Co.,
               Inc., June  1, 1966,  (5) Form 11 -  Certificate of
               Change of Agent, Quality Tool &  Die Co., Inc.,
               June  1, 1966, and,  (6)  Certificate of  Change  of
               Registered  Office or Registered Agent,  or  both,
               Quality Tool  & Die Co., Inc., undated.)

P.   100290-   Amended Certificate of Incorporation  Before
     100315    Payment of  Capital Stock of  Excelsior  Tool &  Die
               Co.,  Inc.,  and Certificate of Incorporation of
               Majoda Tool & Manufacturing  Corp.,  January 29,
               1952.  (Attachments:  (1) Notice  to file Annual
               Report, Majoda Tool &  Manufacturing;Corp., August
               31, 1959, (2) Certificate of Change'of Agent  and
               Location of Principal  Office of Majoda Tool &
               Manufacturing Corp., December 2,  1963,  (3) Form 12
               - Certificate of Change of Location of the
               Principal Office of The Majoda  Tool &
               Manufacturing Corp., June 17, 1963,  (4)  Form  11 -
               Certificate of Change  of Agent, June  17, 1963, (5)
               Form  12 - Certificate  of Change  of Location of the
               Principal Office of The Majoda  Tool &
               Manufacturing Corp., November 18,  1966,  (6) Form
               11 -  Certificate of Change of Agent,  November 18,
               1966,  (7) Certificate  of Change of Registered
               Office or Registered Agent,  or  Both, June  19,
               1974,  (8) Certificate  of Change of Registered
               Office or Registered Agent,  or  Both, July  18,
               1979.)

P.   100316-   Report of Examination  of Title: Title  Vested  in
     100323    Fee Simple  in John J.  Pascale and Quality  Tool &
               Die Co., Inc., prepared by Law  Office  of S. Paul
               Epstein, December 7, 1973.   (Note:  This document
               is CONFIDENTIAL.  It can be  located in the
               Superfund Record Center at 290  Broadway -  18th
               Floor, N.Y.,  N.Y., 10007.)
-------
P.    100324-    Indenture between Ms.  Marie Pascale,  divorced and
     100328     Mr.  John Pascale,  Sr.,  divorced,  of Plots 14  and
               15A  City Block 85,  and by street  address 720  to
               732  Grand Street,  and  727 to 733  Adams  Street,
               Hoboken,  New Jersey, January 30,  1974.
               (Attachments:  Deed and State of New Jersey
               Affidavit of Consideration.)  (Note:  This document
               is CONFIDENTIAL.   It can be located in  the
               Superfund Record  Center at 290  Broadway - 18th
               Floor,  N.Y.,  N.Y.,  10007.)

P.    100329-    Deed (w/  attachments)  between Grantor,  Mr.  John
     100334     J. Pascale and Quality Tool & Die Co.,  Inc.,  and
               Grantee,  Mr.  David P.  Pascale,  for Parcel 1:   720
               -  732 Grand Street, and Parcel  2:  727 -733  Adams
               Street,  Hoboken,  New Jersey,  May  24,  1979.   (Note:
               This document is  CONFIDENTIAL.  It can  be located
               in the  Superfund  Record Center  at 290 Broadway -
               18th Floor,  N.Y.,  N.Y.,  10007.)

P.    100335-    Summary Notice, Quality Tool  &  Die Co.,  Inc.,  July
     100335     2, 1990.

P.    100336-    Environmental  Update to Clients,  Co-Counsel,  and
     100337     Friends,  from Mr.  Edward A.  Hogan,  Chairman,
               Department of Environmental Law,  Porzio,  Bromberg,
               &  Newman,  re:  New ECRA Policy for
               Decontamination/Decommissioning of Building
               Interiors,  January 8,  1993.

P.    100338-    Letter  to Mr.  Robert Schiffmacher,  and  Mr.  Matthew
     100339     Schley,  c/o Robert Kaye,  Esq.,  Chasan,  Leyner,  et
               al., from Mr.  James A.  Rogers,  President,  Rogers
               Environmental  Management,  re: Quality Tool  &  Die
               Co., Inc.,  Due Diligence/Pre-Purchase Review,
               January 12,  1993.

P.    100340-    Letter  to Mr.  Robert Schiffmacher,  c/o  Robert
     100341     Kaye, Esq.,  Chasan, Leyner,  et  al.,  from Mr.  James
               A. Rogers,  President,  Rogers  Environmental
               Management,  re: Quality Tool  &  Die Co.;  Hoboken,
               N.J., Due Diligence/Pre-Purchase  Review,  January
               19,  1993.

P.    100342-    Letter  to Mr.  Robert Schiffmacher,  c/o  Robert
     100371     Kaye, Esq.,  Chasan, Leyner,  et  al.,ffrom Mr.
               Alfred  LoPilato,  Health and Safety Manager, Rogers
               Environmental  Management,  Inc., re:  Quality Tool
               and  Die Co.;  Hoboken,  N.J.,  February 9,  1993.
               (Attachments:  (1)  Letter to Mr. David Pascale,
               Quality Tool  & Die Co.,  Inc., from Mr.  Maurice
-------
p.
          Migliarino, Section Supervisor,  Bureau  of
          Environmental Evaluation and  Cleanup
          Responsibility Assessment, NJDEPE,  re:  Quality
          Tool & Die Co., Inc., September  22, 1992,  (2)
          Letter (w/ attachments) to Mr. Michael  Buriani,
          Case Manager, NJDEPE, from Mr. Michael  Edelson,
          Scarpone & Edelson, re: Quality  Tool  &  Die  Co.,
          Inc., December 15, 1992, and,  (3) Letter  (w/
          attachments) to Mr. Michael Buriani,  Case Manager,
          NJDEPE, from Mr. Michael Edelson, Scarpone  &
          Edelson,  re: Quality Tool & Die  Co.,  Inc.,
          December 10, 1992.)

100372-   Facsimile transmittal page to Mr. Alfred LoPilato,
100376    Rogers Environmental Management, Inc.,  from Mr.
          Jonathan B. James, Chasan, Leyner, Tarrant  &
          Lamparello, re: attached letter, February 11,
          1993. (Attachment: Letter (w/ attachments)  to
          Jonathan B. James, Esq., Chasan, Leyner, Tarrant &
          Lamparello, from Mr. Val Mandel, Scarpone &
          Edelson,  re: Sale of Commercial  Real  Estate in
          Hoboken by David P. Pascale, February 10, 1993.)

100377-   Letter to Mr. Michael Buriani, Division of
100403    Responsible Party Site Remediation, NJDEPE, from
          Ms.  Rose M. Mehrtens, Project Manager, Rogers
          Environmental Management, Inc.,  re: Former  ECRA
          Case #90362, February 4, 1994. (Attachments: (1)
          Letter to Ms. Rose Mehrtens, Rogers Environmental
          Management, Inc.,  from Mr. Maurice Migliarino,
          Section Supervisor, Bureau of Environmental
          Evaluation and Cleanup Responsibility Assessment,
          NJDEPE, re: Quality Tool & Die Co., '-Inc., February
          17,  1994,   (2) Letter to Mr. David Pascale,  Quality
          Tool & Die Co., Inc., from Mr. Kenneth T. Hart,
          Assistant Director, Industrial Site Evaluation
          Element,  NJDEPE, re: Negative Declaration by
          operator dated December 4, 1992, February 8, 1993,
          (3)  Letter (w/attachments) to Mr. Michael Buriani,
          Case Manager, NJDEPE, from Mr. Michael  Edelson,
          Scarpone & Edelson, re: Quality  Tool  &  Die  Co.,
          Inc., January 28,  1993, (4) Industrial  Site
          Evaluation Element, Bureau of Environmental
          Evaluation and Cleanup Responsibility Assessment,
          Report of Inspection, prepared by Mr. Michael
          Buriani,  July 17,  1990.)

100404-   Letter to Mr. Steven Keough, Grand Street Artist
100405    Partnership, from Mr. Christopher Kirby, Project
          Manager,  Environmental Waste Management
          Associates, Inc.,  re: Proposal for Professional
-------
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
100406-
100411
100412-
100412
100413-
100414
100415-
100433
100434-
100434
    100435-
    100439
    100440-
    100440
    100441-
    100616
Services,  722  Grand  Street,  Hoboken,  N.J.,  May 24,
1995.

Handwritten  letter to  all  partners,  from  Shun-Yi
Chen and Ching-Huang Chung,  re:  Cleaning  process
at  722 Grand Street, October 26,  1995.

Letter to  Mr.  Steve  Keough,  Grand Street  Artist
Partnership, from Mr.  David  W. Williamson,
President, D.W.W. Enterprises, Inc.,  re:
Completion of  services, October  30,  1995.

Letter to  Mr.  Steven Keough,  Grand Street Artist
Partnership, from Mr.  John Szalkowski, Senior
Environmental  Scientist, Environmental Waste
Management Associates, Inc.,  re:  Progress Report,
722 Grand  Street, Hoboken, N.J.,  November 1, 1995.

Facsimile  transmission form  to Mr. Stephen  R.
Spector, Spector & Dimin,  P.A.,  from  Mr. Stephen
A. Jaraczewski, Detail Associates, Inc., re:
Enclosed draft report  for  the airborne
determination  of mercury vapor presence, November
13, 1995.  (Attachment: Report:   Mercury Vapor
Survey, 722  Grand Street,  Hoboken, N.J., prepared
by Detail  Associates,  Inc.,  November  8, 1995.)

Letter to  Mr. John Szalkowski, Environmental Waste
Management Associates, Inc.,  from Mr. David W.
Williamson,  President, D.W.W. Enterprises,  Inc.,
re: Mercury  Remediation, Apartment 4A, 722  Grand
Street, Hoboken, N.J., November  16,  1995.

Lettejr to  Mr.  Stephen  Keough, Grand Street
Partnership, from Mr.  John Szalkowski, Senior
Environmental Scientist, Environmental Waste
Management Associates, Inc.,  re:  Mercury
Contamination, 722 Grand Street,  Hoboken, N.J. ,
November 20, 1995.

Handwritten  memo on  Communications Center
Notification Report, to Mr.  Jim  Dalon, from Mr.
Stan Delikat, re: Request  for Assistance, December
22, 1995.

Letter to Virginia Curry,  Esq., U.S.  EPA, Region
II, from Ms. Jane W. Gardner, Counsel-Remediation
Programs, General Electric,  re: Hoboken--Request
for Newark Lamp Plant  Cleanup Plan, February 21,
1996.  (Attachment: Report: Newark Cleanup Plan  for
the Newark Plant, Newark,  New Jersey,(Appendix  Q -
-------
               Site Drawings  Missing)  prepared  by  GE  Company,
               prepared  for State  of  New Jersey Department  of
               Environmental  Protection,  April  30,  1985.)
2.0  REMOVAL RESPONSE

2.1  Sampling and Analysis  Plans

P.   200001-   Plan:     Quality Assurance  Sampling  Plan  for Sgfc-
     200139    Surface Soil, undated.  (Attachments:  (1) Figure 1
               - Preliminary Site Locations, Grand Street Mercury
               Site, Hoboken, N.J-, prepared by U.S. EPA
               Environmental Response  Team, March 27,  1996, (2)
               Table 1 - Field Sampling  Summary, undated, and,
               (3) Appendix A - Superfund Program Representative
               Sampling Guidance, Volume 1: Soil, Interim Final,
               Quality Assurance Sampling Plan, prepared  by The
               U.S. EPA Committee on Representative  Sampling for
               the Removal  Program, prepared for the
               Environmental Response  Branch, U.S.lEPA,
               Headquarters, March 1996.)

P.   200140-   Mercury Abatement/Encapsulation Specifications,
     200142    Grand Street Artist Partnership, 722  Grand Street,
               Hoboken, N.J., prepared by Environmental Waste
               Management Associates,  Inc., undated.

P.   200143-   Arizona Instrument, Certificate of Instrument
     200143    Calibration  (w/ attachment), inspected  by  D.
               Carmen, December 29, 1995.

P.   200144-   Arizona Instrument, Certificate of Instrument
     200145    Calibration  (w/ attachment), inspected  by  D.
               Carmen, January 12, 1996.

P.   200146-   Arizona Instrument, Certificate of Instrument
     200147    Calibration  (w/ attachment), inspected  by  D. Hunt,
               January 30,  1997.                   '

P.   200148-   Mercury Abatement/Encapsulation Specifications,
     200171    Apartments 5A & 5D, 722 Grand Street, Hoboken,
               N.J., prepared by Environmental Waste Management
               Associates,  Inc., prepared for Grand  Street Artist
               Partnership, August 25, 1997.

2.2  Sampling and Analysis  Data/Chain  of Custody Forms

P.
200172-
200176
Urine Mercury Testing, 722 Grand Street, Hoboken,
N.J., December 29, 1995.
-------
     200177-
     200182
P.
P.
P.
P.
P.
P.
     200183-
     200259
200260-
200418
200419-
200425
200426-
200435
200436-
200437

200438-
200450
Memorandum Report to Mr. Rodney Turpin, U.S.
EPA/ERT Work Assignment Manager, through Mr. Vinod
Kansal, REAC Analytical Section Leader, from Mr.
Michael Morganti, REAC Task Leader, re: Executive
Summary Report Volume 1 - Grand Street Mercury
Site. Hoboken. N. J. r February 13, 1996.

Memorandum Report to Mr. Rodney Turpin, U.S.
EPA/ERT Work Assignment Manager, through Mr. Vinod
Kansal, REAC Analytical Section Leader, from Mr.
Michael Morganti, REAC Task Leader, re: Phase 1
Air Monitoring and Sampling, Volume 2 - Trip
Reportf Grand Street Mercury- Site, Hoboken, N.J.r
February 14, 1996.

Report:   Volume 3, Final Report, Grand Street
Mercury Site, Phase II - Air Sampling, 722 Grand
Street,. Hoboken, N.J.f prepared by Roy F. West on,
Inc., prepared for U.S. EPA/ERT, February 1996.

Report:   Sampling Trip Report, Grand Street
Mercury Site, prepared by Mr. Thomas O'Neill, Roy
F- Weston, Inc., prepared for U.S. EPA, Region II,
April 8, 1996.

          Analytical Report. Grand Street Mercury
Report:
Site. Hoboken. N.J.
Inc.
                                    prepared by Roy F.  Weston,
                     prepared for U.S.  EPA-ERT, May 1996.
Chain of Custody Record, Roy F. Weston, Inc., U.S.
EPA, Region II START, July 23, 1996.

GE/EPA Meeting, GE Mercury Remediation Projects,
GE Demolition Cost Estimate for Grand Street Site,
Hoboken, N.J., February 6, 1997. (Attachments:  (1)
GE Lighting, Mercury Encapsulation Projects,
Jackson Lamp and Glass Plants, Newark Lamp Plant,
Cuyahoga Lamp Plant, February 6, 1997, and,  (2)
Directions to Grand Street Mercury Site, undated.)

Letter to Mr. Jack Harmon, Task Monitor, Removal
Action Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II,'from Mr.
Thomas O'Neill, Roy F. Weston, Inc., re: Grand
Street Site Air Monitoring Data Sheets, May  12,
1997.
2.7   Correspondence

P-    200598-   Letter to Mr.  Mike Salter,  Grand Street Artist
     200623     Partnership,  from Mr.  Gary Annibal,  CIH, Enpak
               Services Company,  Inc.,  re: Mercury Sampling in
200451-
200597
-------
p.
200624-
200629
P.
200630-
200631
P.
200632-
200649
     200650-
     200651
P.
200652-
200653
Hoboken, N.J., March 28,  1995.  (Attachment:  An
Industrial Hygiene Survey of Mercury Levels
conducted at 720-732 Grand Street,  Hoboken,  N.J.,
March 11, 1995).

Memorandum to Ms. Janet Smolenski,  Bureau of Field
Operations, Case Assignment Section,  from Mr. J.
Doyle, re: Quality Tool and Die,  Urinalysis
Testing of Residents for  Accelerated Levels  of
Mercury Poisoning, undated. (Attachments:  (1)
NJDEP, Communications Center Notification Report,
December 22, 1995, (2) Newspaper  article,  "Mayor
wants to probe into contaminated  condos",  from the
Trenton Times, December 31, 1995, and,  (3) Case
Assignment Tracking List,  Quality Tool  and Die
Co., Inc., April 24,  1990.)

Memorandum to Mr. Stephen D. Luftig,  Director,
Office of Emergency and Remedial  Response,'U.S.
EPA, Region II, from Ms.  Kathlen  Callahan,
Director, Emergency and Remedial  Response, U.S.
EPA, Region II, re: Request for Concurrence  in a
Nationally Significant Removal Action at the Grand
Street Mercury Site in Hoboken, New Jersey,
December 29, 1995.
Letter to Mr. Jeff
Prevention Branch,
Tom ONeill, START,
Weston, Inc., re:
Monitoring Survey,
(1) Attachment A -
undated, and, (2)
December 27, 1995,
 Bechtel, OSC, Response and
 U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr.
 Project Manager,-i Roy F.
Grand Street Site, Mercury Vapor
 January 2, 1996. (Attachments:
 Mercury Vapor Survey Results,
Attachment B - Photographs from
 Mercury Vapor Survey, undated.)
Memorandum to Ms. Kathleen Callahan,  Director,
Emergency & Remedial Response Division, U.S. EPA,
Region II, from Mr. Stephen D. Luftig,  Director,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S.
EPA, Region II, re: Concurrence on  a  Nationally
Significant Removal Action at the Grand Street
Mercury Site, Hoboken, NJ, January  4,  1996.

Letter to the Residents of 722 Grand  Street,
Hoboken, from Ms. Kathleen Callahan,  Director,
Emergency Response and Remedial Division,  U.S.
EPA, Region II, re: Relocation Assistance, January
11, 1996. (Attachment: Notice to Grand Street
Partnership Properties, Hoboken, New
Jersey, January 9, 1996.)
-------
200654-   Memorandum to Mr. Elliot Laws, Assistant
200660    Administrator, Office.of Solid Waste and Emergency
          Response, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Ms. Kathleen
          Callahan, Director, Emergency and Remedial
          Response Division, U.S. EPA, Region II, re:
          Removal Action at 722 Grand Street, Hoboken, New
          Jersey, January 12, 1996. (Attachments: (1)
          Memorandum to Mr. William J. Muszynski, P.E.,
          Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region
          II, from Ms. Kathleen Callahan, Emergency and
          Remedial Response Division,  U.S. EPA, Region II,
          re: Temporary Relocation Expenses for Certain
          Residents of 722 Grand Street, Hoboken, New
          Jersey, undated;  (2) Letter to Ms. Janet Filameno,
          from Mr. William J. Muszynski, Acting Regional
          Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: the U.S.
          EPA's commitment to assist with temporary
          relocation required as a result of the mercury
          contamination at 722 Grand Street, Hoboken   NJ,
          January 12 , 1996;  (3)  Letter to Ms. China
          Marks, from Mr. William J. Muszynski, Acting
          Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region II, re:
          the U.S. EPA's commitment to assist with temporary
          relocation required as a result of the mercury
          contamination at 722 Grand Street, Hoboken,
          January 12, 1996; (4) Letter to Ms. Meredith
          Lippman and Mr. John Steadwell, from Mr. William
          J. Muszynski, Acting Regional Administrator, U.S.
          EPA, Region II, re: the U.S. EPA's commitment to
          assist with temporary relocation required as a
          result of the mercury contamination1 at 722 Grand
          Street, Hoboken, January 12, 1996; and (5) Letter
          to Mr. David Greisbauer, from Mr. William J.
          Muszynski, Acting Regional Administrator,  U.S.
          EPA, Region II, re: the U.S. EPA's commitment to
          assist with temporary relocation required as a
          result of the mercury contamination at 722 Grand
          Street, Hoboken, January 12, 1996.)

200661-   Letter to Mr. Jeff Bechtel,  OSC, Response and
200673    Prevention Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr.
          Tom O'Neill, Superfund Technical Assessment and
          Response Team  (START) Project Manager, Roy F.
          Weston, Inc., re: Grand Street Site, Sampling Trip
          Report, January 5, 1996, January 15, 1996.
          (Attachment: Report: Sampling Trip Report, 722
          Grand Street, prepared by Mr. Thomas O'Neill, Roy
          F. Weston, Inc., prepared for U.S. EPA, Region II,
          January 5, 1996)
-------
P.   200674-   Memorandum  to  Mr.  Rajeshmal Singhvi,  U.S.  EPA/ERT,
     200688    through  Mr.  Vinod  Kansal,  REAC Analytical  Section
               Leader,  from Jay Patel,  REAC Inorganic Group
               Leader,  re:  Grand  Street Mercury Site Results for
               samples  Collected  February 6-8,  1996, February 14,
               1996.

P.   200689-   Letter to Mr.  Jack Harmon,  OSC,  Removal Action
     200730    Branch,  U.S. EPA,  Region II,  from Mr. Thomas
               O'Neill, Project Manager,  Roy F.  Weston, Inc.,  re:
               Grand Street Site,  Sampling Trip Report, February
               6-8, 1996,  February 26,  1996.  (Attachment:  Report:
               Sampling Trip  Report,  Grand Street Mercury  Site,
               prepared by Mr.  Thomas O'Neill,  Roy F-  Weston,
               Inc., prepared for U.S.  EPA,  Region II,  February
               26,  1996.)

P-   200731-   Letter to 722  Grand Street Resident,  from Irmee
     200734    Huhn, U.S.  EPA,  re:  update on EPA's involvement at
               722  Grand Street,  April  11,  1996.

P-   200735-   Memorandum  to  Mr.  Rodney Turpin,  U.S. EPA/ERT Work
     201014    Assignment  Manager,  through Mr.  Vinod Kansal,  REAC
               Analytical  Section Leader,  from  Mr. Michael
               Morganti, REAC Task Leader,  re:  Subsurface  Soil
               Sampling, Grand Street Mercury Site,  Hoboken,
               N.J., May 15,  1996.

P.   201015-   Letter to Mr.  Jack Harmon,  OSC,  Removal Action
     201039    Branch,  U.S. EPA,  Region II,  from Mr. Thomas
               O'Neill, Project Manager,  Roy F.  Weston, Inc.,  re:
               Grand Street Site,  June  4,  1996.  (Attachment:
               Report:  Investigation  of Lead in Paint and  Mercury
               in Brick and Flooring  Utilizing  the Spectrace 9000
               XRF  at the  Grand Street  Mercury  Site, Hoboken,
               Hudson County,  N.J., prepared by START,  Roy F.
               Weston,  Inc.,  prepared for U.S.  EPA,  Region II,
               June 4,  1996.)

P.   201040-   Letter to Mr.  Jack Harmon,  Task  Monitor, Removal
     201045    Action Branch,  U.S.  EPA, Region  II, from Mr.
               Thomas O'Neill,  Project  Manager,  Roy  F.  Weston,
               Inc., re: Grand Street Site,  Sampling Trip  Report,
               July 23, 1996,  July 26,  1996.  (Attachment:  Report:
               Sampling Trip  Report,  Grand Street Mercury  Site,
               prepared by  Mr.  Thomas O'Neill,  Roy F.  Weston,
               Inc., prepared for U.S.  EPA,  Region II,  July 24,
               1996.)
                                10
-------
201046-
201070
201071-
201074
201075-
201079
201080-
201134
201135-
201147
Transmittal memo to Mr. Jack Harmon, Removal
Action Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Ms.
Jennifer Leahy, Inorganic Data Reviewer, START
Region II, Roy F. Weston, Inc., re: Grand Street,
Hoboken, N.J., Mercury Validation Results and Soil
Matrices, August 23, 1996.  (Attachment: Memorandum
to Mr. Jack Harmon, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Ms.
Jennifer Leahy, START Data Review Team, re: QA/QC
Compliance Review Summary, August 23, 1996, (2)
Report: Sampling Trip Report, Grand Street Mercury
Site, prepared by Mr. Thomas O'Neill, Roy F.
Weston, Inc., prepared for U.S. EPA, Region II,
July 24, 1996, (3) Chain of Custody Record, Roy F.
Weston, Inc., U.S. EPA Region II, START, July 23,
1996, and, (4) Analytical Data Report, prepared by
Accredited Laboratories, Inc., prepared for Roy F.
Weston, Inc., July 23, 1996.)

Letter to 722 Grand Street Resident, from Irmee
Huhn, U.S. EPA, re: summary of new events since
the last update of April 1996, September 3, 1996.

Fax Transmittal to Ms. Catherine Garypie, Esq.,
U.S. EPA, Region II, from Ms. Jane W. Gardner,
Counsel-Remediation Programs, General Electric
Company (GE), re: attached reference to GE Vapor
Lamp and Cooper-Hewitt, September 12, 1996.
(Attachment:  The Electric-Lamp Industry:
Technological Change and Economic Development from
1800 to 1947r written by Arthur A. Bright,
Jr.,(pages 428 through 430).)

Letter to Mr. Jack Harmon, OSC, Removal Action
Branch, U.S.  EPA, Region II, from Mr. Thomas
O'Neill, Project Manager, Roy F. Weston, Inc., re:
Grand Street Site, Mercury Contamination
Investigation Final Report, October 7, 1996.
(Attachment:  Report: Final Report, Mercury
Contamination Investigation, Grand Street Mercury
Site, Hoboken, Hudson County, N.J.,-prepared by
START, Roy F. Weston, Inc., prepared for U.S.  EPA,
Region II - Removal Action Branch, October 2,
1996. )

Letter to Mr. Jack Harmon, OSC, Removal Action
Branch, U.S.  EPA, Region II, from Mr. Thomas
O'Neill, START Project Manager, Roy F. Weston,
Inc., re: Grand Street Site, Sampling Trip Reports
for August 13, 21, and 22, and September 5 and 6,
1996, October 8,  1996. (Attachment: (1) Report:
Sampling Trip Report, Grand Street Mercury Site,
                           11
-------
          prepared by Mr. Thomas O'Neill, Roy  F.  Weston,
          Inc., prepared for U.S. EPA, Region  II,  October 8,
          1996, (2) Report: Sampling Trip Report,  Grand
          Street Mercury Site, prepared by Mr.  Thomas
          O'Neill, Roy F. Weston, Inc., prepared  for U.S.
          EPA, Region II, October 8, 1996.)

201148    Letter to Mr. Jack Harmon, OSC, Removal  Action
201153    Branch,  U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Thomas
          O'Neill, START Project Manager, Roy  F. Weston,
          Inc., re: Grand Street Site Amended  Basement
          Sample Results, October 21, 1996.  (Attachment:
          Evaluation of Inorganic Data for the  Contract
          Laboratory Program, Appendix A.2: Data Assessment
          Narrative, Grand Street Mercury Site, reviewed by
          Ms. Smita Sumbaly, January 1992.)

201154-   Letter to Mr. Jack Harmon, OSC, Removal  Action
201158    Branch,  U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Thomas
          O'Neill, START Project Manager, Roy  F. Weston,
          Inc., re: Grand Street Site, Sampling Trip Report,
          October 15, 1996, October 29, 1996.  (Attachment:
          Report:  Sampling Trip Report, Grand  Street Mercury
          Site, prepared by Mr. Rodolfo Hafner, Roy F.
          Weston,  Inc., prepared for U.S. EPA,  Region II,
          October 22, 1996.)

201159-   Memorandum to Mr. Richard Caspe, Director,
201168    Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S. EPA, Region
          II, from Mr. Stephen D. Luftig, Director, Office
          of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S. EPA,
          Region II, re: Grand Street Mercury  Site, Hoboken,
          N.J., Relocation Benefits, November  12,  1996.
          (Attachments:  Memorandum to Ms. Catherine
          Garypie, Assistant Regional Counsel,  Office of
          Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region II, re:
          Relocation Issues at the Grand Street Mercury
          Site, Hoboken, New Jersey, September  11, 1996 and
          Memorandum to Mr. Stanley L. Laskowski,  Acting
          Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region 3, from
          Ms. Jean C. Nelson, General Counsel,  re: Legal
          Authority to replace demolished building at
          Superfund Sites,  December 16, 1993.'

201169-   Transmittal memo to Mr. Jack Harmon,  OSC, Removal
201182    Action Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II,  from Ms. Smita
          Sumbaly, Data Reviewer, and Mr. Thomas O'Neill,
          START Project Manager, Roy F. Weston, Inc., re:
          Grand Street Mercury Site, Data Validation
          Assessment, December 9, 1996.  (Attachment:  (1)
          Memorandum to Mr. Jack Harmon, OSC,  U.S. EPA,
                           12
-------
          Region II, from Ms. Smita Sumbaly, START Data
          Review Team, re: QA/QC Compliance Review Summary,
          November 27, 1996,  (2) Evaluation of Inorganic
          Data for the Contract Laboratory Program, Appendix
          A.2: Data Assessment Narrative, Grand Street
          Mercury Site, reviewed by Ms. Smita Sumbaly,
          January 1992, (3) Nonconformance Summary, undated,
          (4) Metals Analysis Results, prepared by IEA,
          prepared for Weston TAT, October 25, 1996, and,
          (5) Chain of Custody Form, October 15, 1996.)

201183-   Letter to Mr. Richard L. Caspe, Director,
201184    Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
          EPA, Region II,  from Mr. George W. Crimmins,
          Business Administrator, Office of the Business,
          Administrator,  re: 722 Grand Street Mercury Site,
          Hoboken, N.J.,  December 19, 1996.

201185-   Letter to Mr. Robert Drasheff, Director,
201185    Department of Human Services, City of Hoboken,
          from Ms. Lisa P. Jackson, Project Manager,
          Emergency and Remedial Response Division, re:
          Superfund Policy Directive Regarding Land Use,
          December 19, 1996.

201186-   Letter to Mr. Jack Harmon, Task Monitor, Removal
201217    Action Branch,  U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr.
          Thomas O'Neill,  Project Manager, Roy F. Weston,
          Inc.,  re: Grand Street Site, Sampling Trip Report,
          December 12, 1996, December 20, 1996.  (Attachment:
          Report: Sampling Trip Report, Grand Street Mercury
          Site,  prepared by Mr. Thomas O'Neill, Roy F.
          Weston, Inc., prepared for U.S. EPA, Region II,
          December 20, 1996.)

201218-   Letter to Mr. George W. Crimmins, Director,
201219    Department of Administration, from Mr. Richard L.
          Caspe,  Director, Emergency Remedial and Response
          Division, U.S.  EPA, Region II, re: 722 Grand
          Street Mercury Site, Hoboken, N.J., January 9,
          1997.

201220-   Letter to Mr. Jack Harmon, OSC, Removal Action
201229    Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Thomas
          O'Neill, START Project Manager, Roy'F. Weston,
          Inc.,  re: Grand Street Site Wipe Sample Results,
          January 31, 1997. (Attachment: Table 1 - Wipe
          sample Results,  Grand Street Mercury Site,
          Hoboken, N.J.,  undated, (2) Attachment A -
          Laboratory Data, Analytical Data Report for
          Mercury in Wipes, prepared by Enviro-Probe, Inc.,
                           13
-------
p.
p.
P-
          prepared  for  Roy F.  Weston,  Inc., December 13,
          1996,  (3)  Chain of Custody Record, Roy F. Weston,
          Inc.,  U.S.  EPA Region II,  START,  December 12,
          1996,  (4)  Chain of Custody Form for Wipe Samples,
          December  13,  1996,  (5)  MDL Determination for
          Mercury in Drinking Water,  July 7, 1995, and,  (6)
          Facsimile  transmittal to Ms.  Smita Sumbaly,  Roy  F.
          Weston, Inc.,  from Subhash,  Enviro-Probe, Inc.,
          re: Calibration for Mercury,  January 16, 1997.)

201230-   Memorandum to Grand Street Mercury Site File, from
201235    Mr. John F. Hansen,  Project Manager,  U.S. EPA,
          Region II,  re:  Grand Street Mercury, Site, EPA
          Visit  to GE Lighting Facility,  February 6,  1997,
          February  13,  1997.

201236-   Letter to  Mr.  Jack Harmon,  Task Monitor, U.S. EPA,
201254    Region II,  Removal  Action  Branch,  from Mr.  Thomas
          O'Neill, Project Manager,  Roy F.  Weston, Inc., re:
          Work and Sampling Plan  - Grand Street Mercury Site
          - Risk Assessment,  February 27,  1997. (Attachment:
          Plan:  Sampling QA/QC Work  Plan, Grand Street
          Mercury Site/725 Adams  Street,  Risk Assessment,
          Hoboken, Hudson County,  N.J.,  prepared by START,
          Roy F. Weston,  Inc.,  prepared for U.S.  EPA,  Region
          II - Removal  Action Branch,  February 27, 1997.)

201255-   Letter to  Mr.  Jack Harmon,  Task Monitor, Removal
201262    Action Branch,  U.S.  EPA, Region II,  from Mr.
          Thomas O'Neill,  Project Manager,  Roy F.  Weston,
          Inc.,  re:  Sampling  Trip Report -  725 Adams Street,
          March  11,  1997.  (Attachment:  Report:  Sampling Trip
          Report, 725 Adams Street,  Hoboken, N.J., prepared
          by Mr. Thomas  O'Neill,  Roy F.  Weston, Inc.,
          prepared for  U.S.  EPA,  Region II,  March 4,  1997.)

          Letter from Mr.  John F.  Hansen, Project Manager,
          New Jersey  Remediation  Branch,  U.S.  EPA, Region
          II, re: the review  and  approval of the document
          entitled,  "Technical Engineering Evaluation  for
          Mercury Remediation  at  the  Grand  Street Site",
          dated March 11,  1997, sent  March  18,  1997.

201264-   Transmittal memo to  Mr.  Jack Harmon,  OSC, Removal
201296    Action Branch,  U.S.  EPA, Region II,  from Ms. Smita
          Sumbaly, Data  Reviewer,  and Mr. Thomas ONeill,
          Project Manager,  START  Region II,  Roy F. Weston,
          Inc.,  re:  Grand Street  Mercury Site,  Data
          Validation  Assessment,  March 25,  1997.
          (Attachment:  Memorandum to Mr.  Jack;Harmon,  OSC,
          U.S. EPA,  Region II,  from  Ms.  Smita Sumbaly, START
201263-
201263
                                14
-------
               Data Review Team,  re:  QA/QC Compliance Review
               Summary,  March 24,  1997,  (2)  Evaluation of
               Inorganic Data for the Contract Laboratory Program
               (w/ attachments),  Appendix A.2: Data Assessment
               Narrative,  Grand Street Mercury Site,  reviewed by
               Ms. Smita Sumbaly,  January 1992.)

P.    201297-    Letter to Mr.  Jack Harmon,  Task Monitor,  Removal
     201443     Action Branch,  U.S.  EPA,  Region II,  from Mr.
               Thomas O'Neill,  Project Manager,  Roy F. Weston,
               Inc.,  re:  Grand Street Air Monitoring Data Sheets,
               May 12,  1997.  (Attachments:  (1) Daily Mercury
               Vapor Survey Results,  722 Grand Street, Hoboken,
               N.J.,  various dates,  and (2)  Region  II START,
               Mercury Vapor Survey Results,  various dates.)


4.0  FEASIBILITY STUDY

4.3  Feasibility Study Reports

P.    400001-    Report:  Mercury  Exposure Among Residents of a
     400006     Building Formerly  Used for Industrial Purposes,
               New Jersey,  January 1995.

P.    400007-    Report:  Center for Disease Control and Prevention,.
     400026     Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,  Vol.  45,
               No. 20.  May 24,  1996.

P.    400027-    Appraisal Review,  prepared by Nationwide
     400032     Consulting Company,  Inc. , prepared for Baltimore
               District,  U.S.  Army Corps,  of Engineers,  June 7,
               1996  (Note:  This  document is CONFIDENTIAL.   It is
               located at the U.S.  EPA Superfund Records Center,
               290 Broadway,  18th Floor, N.Y., N.Y.  10007..)

P.    400033-    Appraisal Review,  prepared by Lama Realty
     400037     Services,  prepared for Baltimore District,  U.S.
               Army Corps,  of Engineers, June 7, 1996  (Note:
               This document is CONFIDENTIAL.   It is located at
               the U.S.  EPA Superfund Records Center,  290
               Broadway,  18th Floor,  N.Y.,  N.Y.  10007..)

P.    400038-    Appraisal Review,  prepared by Lama Realty
     400040     Services,  prepared for Baltimore District,  U.S.
               Army Corps,  of Engineers, July 2, 1996  (Note:
               This document is CONFIDENTIAL.   It is located at
               the U.S.  EPA Superfund Records Center,  290
               Broadway,  18th Floor,  N.Y.,  N.Y.  10007..)
                               15
-------
P.   400041-   Report:   Appraisal  of  Real  Property,  Industrial
     400120    Buildings, 720-722 Grand  Street,  Hoboken,  Hudson
               County, N.J., prepared  by Anthony F.  Lama  Realty
               Services, Inc.,  prepared  for Baltimore District,
               U.S. Army Corps,  of  Engineers,  July 2, 1996 (Note:
               This document is CONFIDENTIAL.   It is  located at
               the U.S. EPA Superfund  Records  Center, 290
               Broadway, 18th Floor, N.Y.,  N.Y.,  10007..)

P.   400121-   Report:   Appraisal  of  Real  Property,  720-722
     400257    Grand Street, Hoboken,  Hudson County,  N.J.,
               prepared by Anthony  F.  Lama  Realty Services,  Inc.,
               prepared for Baltimore  District,  U.S.  Army Corps.
               of Engineers, July 2, 1996 and  July 24,  1996.
               (Note:  This document is  CONFIDENTIAL.  It is
               located at the U.S.  EPA Superfund Records  Center,
               290 Broadway, 18th Floor,  N.Y.,  N.Y.,  10007..)

P.   400258-   Report:   Appraisal  of  720-732  Grand Street,
     400355    Hoboken, N.J., Block: 85  Lots:  14  and  15.1 (17
               Condominium Units) prepared  by  Nationwide
               Consulting Company,  Inc.,  prepared for Baltimore
               District, U.S. Army  Corps, of Engineers, July 9,
               1996 (Note:  This document is CONFIDENTIAL.   It is
               located at the U.S.  EPA Superfund Records  Center,
               290 Broadway, 18th Floor,  N.Y.,  N.Y.,  10007..)

P.   400356-   Report: Technical Engineering Evaluation for
     400439    Mercury Remediation  at  The Grand  Street  Sitef
               prepared by Levine Fricke  Recon Inc.,  prepared for
               Roy F. Weston, Inc., March 11,  1997.

P.   400440-   Report: Final Baseline  Human Health Risk
     400578    Assessment, Grand Street  Site,  Hudson  County.
               Hoboken. N J.  prepared by  Roy F.  Weston,  Inc.,
               prepared for U.S. EPA,  Region II,  Removal  Action
               Branch, April 1997.

4.6  Correspondence
                                                   r
P.   400579-   Memorandum to Chief, Real  Estate  Section,  New
     400580    Jersey Field Office, East  Brunswick, N.J.,  from
               Mr. Thomas J. Geronikos, MAI, ASA,  Acting  Chief,
               Appraisal Branch, U.S.  Army  Corps  of Engineers,
               re: 722 Grand Avenue, Hoboken,  N.J., September 6,
               1996.
                                16
-------
               GRAND STREET MERCURY SITE
           ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE UPDATE
                   INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY

Correspondence

400581    Letter to Catherine Garypie, Esq., Office of
400584    Regional Counsel, New Jersey Superfund Branch,
          U.S. EPA, Region II, from Robert E. Murray, Esq.,
          Murray, Murray, Corrigan, & Garcia, re: 722 Grand
          St., Hoboken, NJ, Mercury Contaminated Site,
          requested information submitted on behalf of  the
          City of Hoboken in response to correspondence
          dated September 11, 1997, September 22, 1997.
-------
7.0  ENFORCEMENT

7.1  Enforcement History

P.   700001-   January 17,  1997 Meeting Outline,  General  Electric
     700216    Co. and U.S. EPA Region II,  "Hoboken",  prepared  by
               General Electric, prepared  for U.S.  EPA, Region
               II, January  17, 1997.

7.3  Administrative Orders

P.   700217-   Letter to Mr. John Welch, Jr., Chief Executive
     700245    Officer, General Electric Company, and  Mr. John
               Pascale, Sr., from Mr. Richard Caspe, Director,
               Emergency and Remedial Response Division,  U.S.
               EPA, Region  II, re: Grand St. Mercury Superfund
               Site - Unilateral Administrative Order, Index No.
               II-CERCLA-97-0108, February  24, 1997.  (Attachment:
               Unilateral Administrative Order for  Removal
               Response Activities, In the  Matter of Grand Street
               Mercury Site, Hoboken, New Jersey, vs.  General
               Electric Company and John Pascale, Sr.,
               Respondents, February 24, 1997.)
                                                  ^
P.   700246-   Letter to Catherine Garypie,  Esq., Assistant
     700264    Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA,  Region II,  from Mr.
               John F. Semple, Sterns & Weinroth, re:  Grand
               Street Mercury Superfund Site - Unilateral
               Administrative Order, Index  No. II-CERCLA-97-0108,
               March 28, 1997.

P.   700265-   Letter to Catherine Garypie,  Esq., Office  of
     700334    Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA,  Region II,  from Ms.
               Jane'W. Gardner, Manager and Counsel -  Remediation
               Programs, General Electric Company,  re: Grand
               Street Artists Partnership Site, Hoboken,  N.J.,:
               General Electric Companys Comments on Unilateral
               Administrative Order, Index  No. II-CERCLA-97-0108,
               April 1, 1997.  (Attachments:  (I) Attachment 1 -
               GEs Specific Comments on the Proposed Order,
               undated, (2) Letter  (w/ attachment)  to  Catherine
               Garypie, Esq., Office Of Regional  Counsel, U.S.
               EPA, from Ms. Kathryn B. Thompson, Sidley  &
               Austin, re:  Grand Street Artists Partnership Site,
               Hoboken, N.J., General Electric Companys Comments
               on Unilateral Administrative Order,  Index  No. II-
               CERCLA-97-0108, April 1, 1997,  (3) Attachment 2  -
               Comments on  U.S. EPA Fire Analysis  for  722 Grand
               Street in Hoboken, N.J., prepared  by PTI
               Environmental Services, prepared for U.S.  EPA,
               Region II, undated,  (4) Attachment 3 -  Letter to
                                17
-------
              'Sperti  Faraday,  Inc.,  Cooper Hewitt  Electric
              Company Division,  from Mr.  Bill  Rice,  re:
              Replacement  Bulb for p!06  sunlamp, October 5,
              1994,  (5) Attachment 4 - Grand Street  Artists
              Partnership  Meeting Minutes,  November  4,  1995,  (6)
              Attachment 6 -  Letter  to Ira Karasick,  Esq. from
              Mr.  Stephen  R.  Spector, Spector  &  Dimin,  P.A.,  re:
              Grand Street Artists Partnership,  November 7,
              1995,  (7) Attachment 7 - Letter  to Ching-Huang
              Chung and Shun  Yi  Chen, from Mr. Jack  Harmon, On-
              Scene Coordinator, U.S. EPA,  Region  II,  re: The
              Grand Street Mercury Site,  Hoboken,  N.J.,  undated,
              (8)  Attachment  8 - Group Meeting of  Grand Street
              Artists Members, March 31,  1996,  (9) Attachment 9
              -  Letter to  Mr.  David  Pascale, c/o Michael
              Edelson, Esq.,  Hellring, Lindeman, Goldstein &
              Siegal,  from Mr. Richard J.  Gimello, Assistant
              Commissioner, NJDEP, re: Industrial  Establishment:
              Quality Tool &  Die Co., Inc., Negative Declaration
              Approval dated  February 8,  1993, December 20,
              1996, and, (10)  Attachment  10 -  Letter to Patricio
              Martinez-Lorenzo,  Esq., from Mr. Henry Guzman,
              Assistant Regional Counsel,  U.S. EPA,  Region II,
              re:  Juncos Landfill Superfund Site,  May 10, 1993.)

P.    700335-   Unilateral Administrative Order  for^Removal
     700342    Response Activities, In the Matter of  Grand Street
              Mercury Site, Hoboken,  N.J.,  vs. Geheral  Electric
              Company and  Mr.  John Pascale, Sr., May 6,  1997.

7.5   Affidavits

P.    700343-   U.S. EPA, Region II, Redacted Administrative
     700393    Deposition,  In  the Matter of Grand Street Mercury
              Site, Hoboken,  N.J., 10:15  A.M., April 16,  1996.

P.    700394-   Administrative  Deposition,  In the  Matter  of Grand
     700443    Street  Mercury  Site, Hoboken, New  Jersey,
              transcript of testimony taken by Waga  and
              Spenelli, certified shorthand reporters,  on April
              16,  1996.  (Note: This  document is  CONFIDENTIAL.
              It can  be located  in the Superfund Record Center
              at 290  Broadway -  18th Floor, N.Y.,  N.Y.,  10007=)

P.    700444-   U.S. EPA, Region II, Redacted Administrative
     700465    Deposition,  In  the Matter of Grand Street Mercury
              Site, Hoboken,  N.J., 2:00 P.M.,  April  16,  1996.

P.    700466-   Administrative  Deposition,  In the  Matter  of Grand
     700486    Street  Mercury  Site, Hoboken, New  Jersey,
              transcript of testimony taken by Waga  and


                               18
-------
               Spenelli, certified  shorthand  reporters,  on April
               16,  1996.  (Note:  This  document is  CONFIDENTIAL.
               It can  be located in the  Superfund Record Center
               at 290  Broadway  - 18th Floor,  N.Y.,  N.Y.,  10007.)

P.   700487-   U.S. EPA, Region II, Redacted  Administrative
     700515    Deposition,  In the Matter of Grand Street Mercury
               Site, Hoboken, N.J., April  18,  1996.

P-   700516-   Administrative Deposition,  In  the  Matter  of Grand
     700543    Street  Mercury Site, Hoboken,  New  Jersey,
               transcript of testimony taken  by Waga  and
               Spenelli, certified  shorthand  reporters,  on April
               18,  1996.  (Note:  This  document is  CONFIDENTIAL.
               It can  be located in the  Superfund Record Center
               at 290  Broadway  - 18th Floor,  N.Y.,  N.Y.,  10007.)

P.   700544-   U.S. EPA, Region II, Redacted  Administrative
     700581    Deposition,  In the Matter of Grand Street  Mercury
               Site, Hoboken, N.J., April  19,  1996.

P-   700582-   Administrative Deposition,  In  the  Matter  of Grand
     700618    Street  Mercury Site, Hoboken,  New  Jersey,
               transcript of testimony taken  by Waga  and
               Spenelli, certified  shorthand  reporters,  on April
               19,  1996. (Note:  This  document is  CONFIDENTIAL.
               It can  be located in the  Superfund Record  Center
               at 290  Broadway  - 18th Floor,  N.Y.,  N.Y.,  10007.)

P.   700619-   U.S. EPA, Region II, Redacted  Administrative
     700643    Deposition,  In the Matter of Grand Street  Mercury
               Site, Hoboken, N.J., May  31, 1996.  \

P.   700644-   Administrative Deposition,  In  the  Matter  of Grand
     700667    Street  Mercury Site, Hoboken,  New  Jersey,
               transcript of testimony taken  by Waga  and
               Spenelli, certified  shorthand  reporters,  on May
               31,  1996. (Note:  This  document is  CONFIDENTIAL.
               It can  be located in the  Superfund Record  Center
               at 290  Broadway  - 18th Floor,  N.Y.,  N.Y.,  10007.)

P.   700668-   U.S. EPA, Region II, Redacted  Administrative
     700714    Deposition,  In the Matter of Grand Street  Mercury
               Site, Hoboken, N.J., June 11,  1996.

P.   700715-   Administrative Deposition,  In  the  Matter  of Grand
     700758    Street  Mercury Site, Hoboken,  New  Jersey,
               transcript of testimony taken  by Waga  and
               Spenelli, certified  shorthand  reporters,  on June
               11,  1996. (Note:  This  document is  CONFIDENTIAL.
               It can  be located in the  Superfund Record Center
                                19
-------
     700759-
     700882
     700883-
     701019
     701020-
     701030
P.
701031-
701075
at 290 Broadway - 18th Floor, N.Y., N.Y., 10007.)

U.S. EPA, Region II, Redacted Administrative Sworn
Statement In the Matter of Grand Street Mercury
Site, Hoboken, N.J., July 1, 1996.

Administrative sworn statement (with Exhibits
attached), In the Matter of The Grand Street
Mercury Site, Hoboken, New Jersey, taken by
Britton & Associates, on July 1,  1996.  (Note:
This document is CONFIDENTIAL.  It can be located
in the Superfund Record Center at 290 Broadway -
18th Floor, N.Y., N.Y., 10007.)

Telecopy Cover Letter to Catherine Garypie, Esq.,
from Michael Edelson, Esq., re: Grand Street
Mercury Superfund Site, November 19, 1996.
(Attachments: (1) Declaration of Ms. Rose
Sinclair, November 6, 1996, and (2) Counterclaim
of Rogers Environmental Management, Inc., November
6, 1996)

Administrative Deposition of Mr.  John J. Pascale,
In the Matter of Grand Street Artists vs. General
Electric Company, February 12, 1997.
7.7   Notice  Letters  and Responses  -  104(e)'s

P.    701076-   Documents submitted with Mr. David P-  Pascale's
     705186     response to November  7,  1996 EPA Supplemental
               Request,  in answer  to request  no.  1,  undated.
               (Attachment:  Letter (w/  attachments)  to Catherine
               Garypie,  Esq.,  Assistant Regional  Counsel,  U.S.
               EPA,  Region II,  from  Mr.  Michael Edelson,  Bellring
               Lindeman Goldstein  &  Siegal, re:  Grand Street
               Mercury Superfund Site (the "Site") ,  722 Grand
               Street,.Hoboken, N.J., December  18,  1996.)

P.    705187-   Exhibits to a lawsuit filed by Spector & Dimin
     705802     against the Grand Street Artists Partnership,
               undated.

P.    705803-   Request for Information  Letter to  Mr.  John Welch,
     705805     Jr.,  Chief Executive  Officer,  General  Electric
               Company,  c/o Jane W.  Gardner,  Esq.,  from Ms.
               Kathleen C.  Callahan,  Director,  Emergency and
               Remedial Response Division, U.S.  EPA,  Region  II,
               re: 722  Grand Street  Mercury Site, Hoboken, New
               Jersey,  Request for Information  Pursuant to
               Comprehensive Environmental Response,  Compensation
               and Liability Act,  42 U.S.C. Section 9601,  et
                               20
-------
               seq., February 2,  1996.

P.   705806-   Request for Information Letter to Mr.  John Welch,
     705817    Jr. , Chief Executive Officer, General  Electric
               Company, c/o Jane  W. Gardner, Esq.,  from Ms.
               Kathleen C. Callahan, Director, Emergency and
               Remedial Response  Division, U.S. EPA,  Region II,
               re:  722 Grand Street Mercury Site, Hoboken, New
               Jersey, Request for Information Pursuant to
               Comprehensive Environmental Response,  Compensation
               and  Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601, et
               seq., February 5,  1996. (Attachments:  (1)
               Instructions for Responding to Request for
               Information; (2) Request for Information; and (3)
               Certification of Answers to Request  for
               Information.)

P-   705818-   Letter to Ms.  Marissa Wiggett, Emergency and
     706212    Remedial Response  Division, U.S. EPA,  Region II,
               from Mr. Dennis O. Correia, Technical  Manager -
               Environmental,  General Electric Company, re:
               Response of General Electric Company to 104(e)
               Request for Information, Re: 722 Grand Street
               Site, Hoboken,  N.J., March 8, 1996.  (Attachments:
               Index of Attachments, undated) (Note:  This
               document is CONFIDENTIAL.  It is located at the
               U.S. EPA Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway,
               N.Y., N.Y. 10007.)

P-   706213-   Request for Information Letter to David and
     706225    Sherrill Pascale,  from Ms. Kathleen  C. Callahan,
               Director,  Emergency and Remedial Response
               Division,  U.S.  EPA, Region II, re: 722 Grand
               Street Mercury Site, Hoboken, New Jersey, Request
               for  Information Pursuant to Comprehensive
               Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
               Act, 42 U.S.C.  Section 9601, et seq'.,  March 17,
               1996. (Attachments: (1) Instructions for
               Responding to Request for Information; (2)
               Request for Information; and (3)  Certification of
               Answers to Request for Information.)

P.   706226-   Request for Information Letter to KBD  Inc., c/o
     706238    Mr. James C. Shepherd, President, from Ms.
               Kathleen C. Callahan, Director, Emergency and
               Remedial Response  Division, U.S. EPA,  Region II,
               re:  722 Grand Street Mercury Site, Hoboken, New
               Jersey, Request for Information Pursuant to
               Comprehensive Environmental Response,  Compensation
               and  Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601, et
               seq., March 17, 1996.  (Attachments:  (1)
                                21
-------
               Instructions for Responding to Request for
               Information; (2)  Request for Information;  and (3)
               Certification of Answers to Request for
               Information.)

p.    706239-    Request for Information Letter to Mr.  John
     706251     Pascals,  from Ms.  Kathleen C.  Callahan,  Director,
               Emergency and Remedial Response Division,  U.S.
               EPA,  Region II,  re:  722 Grand Street Mercury Site,
               Hoboken,  New Jersey,  Request for Information
               Pursuant  to Comprehensive Environmental Response,
               Compensation and Liability Act,  42 U.S.C.  Section
               9601,  et  seq.,  March 29,  1996.  (Attachments:  (1)
               Instructions for Responding to Request for
               Information; (2)  Request for Information;  and (3)
               Certification of Answers to Request for
               Information.)

P.    706252-    Request for Information Letter to Mr.  George
     706260     Sperti,  from Ms.  Kathleen C.  Callahan,  Director,
               Emergency and Remedial Response Division,  U.S.
               EPA,  Region II,  re:  722 Grand Street Mercury Site,
               Hoboken,  New Jersey,  Request for Information
               Pursuant  to Comprehensive Environmental Response,
               Compensation and Liability Act,  42 U.S.C.  Section
               9601,  et  seq.,  March 29,  1996.  (Attachments:  (1)
               Instructions for Responding to Request for
               Information; (2)  Request for Information;  and (3)
               Certification of Answers to Request for
               Information.)

P.    706261-    Request for Information Letter to Mr.  John
     706276     Pascale,  Jr.,  from Ms. Kathleen C. Callahan,
               Director,  Emergency and Remedial Response
               Division,  U.S.  EPA,  Region II,  re: 722 Grand
               Street Mercury Site,  Hoboken,  New Jersey,  Request
               for Information Pursuant to Comprehensive
               Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
               Act,  42 U.S.C.  Section 9601,  et seq.,  April  11,
               1996.  (Attachments:  (1) Instructions for
               Responding to Request for Information;  (2)  Request
               for Information;  and (3)  Certification of  Answers
               to Request for Information.)

P.    706277-    Letter to Ms.  Marissa Wiggett,  U.  S. EPA,  Region
     706289     II,  from  Mr. Michael Edelson,  Hellring Lindeman
               Goldstein & Siegal,  re: 722 Grand Street Mercury
               Site,  Hoboken,  N.J.,  April 12,  1996. (Attachment:
               Response  (w/ attachments)  of Mr. David Pascale  to
               request for information forwarded with the March
               17,  1996  letter of Ms. Kathleen C. Callahan,
                               22
-------
                Director,  Emergency and  Remedial Response
                Division,  U.S.  EPA,  Region II,  April 9,  1996.)

P.   706290-    Request  for  Information  Letter to Mr.  John
     706291     Welch, Jr.,  Chief  Operating Officer, General
                Electric Company,  c/o Jane W.  Gardner,  Esq., from
                Ms. Kathleen C.  Callahan,  Director,  Emergency and
                Remedial Response  Division,  U.S.  EPA,  Region II,
                re: 722  Grand Street Mercury Site,  Hoboken,  New
                Jersey,  response to Request for Information  (dated
                February 5,  1996)  Pursuant to Comprehensive
                Environmental Response,  Compensation and Liability
                Act, 42  U.S.C.  Section 9601,  et seq.,  May 10,
                1996.

P-   706292-    Answers  to Request for Information  Pursuant  to
     706301     CERCLA letter dated April  11,  1996,  prepared by
                Mr. John J.  Pascale, Jr.,  May 10,  1996.

P.   706302-    Request  for  Information  Letter  to Mr.  John
     706312     Welch, Jr.,  Chief  Operating Officer,  General
                Electric Company,  c/o Jane W. Gardner, Esq.,  from
                Ms. Kathleen C.  Callahan,  Director,  Emergency and
                Remedial Response  Division,  U.S.  EPA,  Region II,
                re: 722  Grand Street Mercury Site,  Hoboken,  New
                Jersey,  Request  for Information Pursuant to
                Comprehensive Environmental  Response,  Compensation
                and Liability Act,  42 U.S.C.  Section 9601, et
                seq., May  10, 1996.  (Attachments:  (1)
                Instructions for Responding to  Request for
                Information;  (2) Supplemental Request  for
                Information;  and (3) Certification  of  Answers to
                Request  for  Information.)

P.   706313-    Letter to Catherine  Garypie,  Esq.,  Office of
     706389     Regional Counsel,  U.S. EPA,  Region  II, from  Jane
                W. Gardner,  Esq.,  re: Grand  Street  Properties,
                Hoboken, June 7, 1996. (Attachments:  (1)  Civil
                Case Information Statement (CIS),  filed  by Mr.
                George Weiner, September 28,  1995,  (2) Civil
                Action Complaint,  George Weiner;  Louis Nel and
                Janet Filameno,  husband  and  wife; and  Gerald
                Norton and Katherine Parker,  husband and wife,
                Plaintiffs,  vs.  Grand Street Artists Partnership,
                Defendant, September 26, 1995,  (3)  Exhibit "A" -
                Grand Street Artists Partnership  Agreement,
                prepared by  Chasan,  Leyner,  Tarranti &  Lamparello,
                P.C., August 3,  1993, (4)  Civil Action Order to
                Show Cause,  George Weiner,  Louis  Nel and Janet
                Filameno, husband  and wife,  and Gerald Norton and
                Katherine Parker,  husband  and wife,  Plaintiffs,
                                23
-------
              vs. Grand Street Artists Partnership, Defendant,
              October 2, 1995, (5) Civil Action Consent Order,
              George Weiner; Louis Nel and Janet Filameno,
              husband and wife; and Gerald Norton and Katherine
              Parker, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, vs. Grand
              Street Artists Partnership, Defendant, November 8,
              1995, and, (6) Civil Action Certification of
              Stephen R. Spector  (w/ attachments), George
              Weiner, Louis Nel and Janet Filameno, husband and
              wife, and Gerald Norton and Katherine Parker,
              husband and wife, Plaintiffs, vs. Grand Street
              Artists Partnership, Defendant, September 26,
              1995.)                             -

P.   706390-   Letter to Mr. Warren G. Millar, from Ms. Catherine
    706395    Garypie, Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA,
              Region II, re: Grand Street Mercury Superfund
              Site, Hoboken, N.J., Subpoena Ad Testificandum and
              Subpoena Duces Tecum, June 14, 1996.  (Attachments:
              (1) Subpoena Ad Testificandum and Subpoena Duces
              Tecum, In the Matter of Grand Street Mercury
              Superfund Site, 722 Grand Street, Hoboken, N.J.,
              prepared by Ms. Jeanne M. Fox, Regional
              Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region II, prepared for
              Mr. Warren G. Millar, Respondent, June 12, 1996,
              and,  (2) Affidavit of Service, served by Ms.
              Orelia Lewis, Section Secretary, June 14, 1996.)

P.   706396-   Letter to Mr. John J. Pascale, Sr.,.from Ms.
    706402    Catherine Garypie,  Assistant Regional Counsel,
              U.S.  EPA, Region II, re: Grand Street Mercury
              Superfund Site, Hoboken, N.J., Subpoena Ad
              Testificandum and Subpoena Duces Tecum, June 14,
              1996. (Attachments: (1) Subpoena Ad Testificandum
              and Subpoena Duces Tecum, In the Matter of Grand
              Street Mercury Superfund Site, 722 Grand Street,
              Hoboken, N.J., prepared by Ms. Jeanne M. Fox,
              Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region II,
              prepared for Mr. John J. Pascale, Sr., Respondent,
              June  12, 1996, and, (2) Affidavit of Service,
              served by Mr. Gerard B. Connolly, Civil
              Investigator, June 19,- 1996.)

?.   706403-   Letter to Ms. Marissa Wiggett, Emergency and
    706412    Remedial Response Division, U.S. EPA, Region II,
              from  Mr. Dennis O.  Correia, Technical Manager -
              Environmental, General Electric Company, re:
              Supplemental Response of General Electric Company
              to 104(e) Request for Information re: 722 Grand
              Street Site,  Hoboken, N.J., June 21',  1996.
              (Attachment:  Attachment #1 - Securities and
                               24
-------
               Exchange Commission,  Form  10-K,  General  Electric
               Company, for the  fiscal year ended  December 31,
               1995.)(Note: This document is CONFIDENTIAL.   it is
               located at the Superfund Records Center,  290
               Broadway, 18th Floor, N.Y.,  N.Y.,  10007.)

P.   706413-   Redacted Letter to Ms. Marissa Wiggett,  Emergency
     706461    and Remedial Response Division,  U.S.  EPA,  Region
               II, from Mr. Dennis O. Correia,  Technical  Manager
               - Environmental, General Electric Company,  re:
               Response of General Electric Company  to  104(e)
               Request for Information re:  722  Grand Street Site,
               Hoboken, N.J., June 21, 1996.  (Attachment:  Index
               of attachments from General  Electric's second
               104(e) Response, undated.)

P.   706462-   Letter to Ms. Marissa Wiggett, Emergency and
     706516    Remedial Response Division,  U.S. EPA,  Region II,
               from Mr. Dennis 0. Correia,  Technical Manager -
               Environmental, General Electric  Company, re:
               Response of General Electric Company  to  104(e)
               Request for Information re:  722  Grand Street Site,
               Hoboken, New Jersey, June  21,  1996.  (Attachments:
               Letter  (with attachments)  to Ms. Marissa Wiggett,
               Emergency and Remedial Response  Division,  U.S.
               EPA,  Region II, from Mr. Dennis  0.  Correia,
               Technical Manager - Environmental,  General
               Electric Company, re: Supplemental  Response  of
               General Electric Company to  104(e)  Request  for
               Information re: 722 Grand  Street Site, Hoboken,
               New Jersey,  June 21,  1996.)  (Note:  This document
               is CONFIDENTIAL.  It can be  located in the
               Superfund Record Center at 290 Broadway -  18th
               Floor, N.Y., N.Y., 10007.)

P.   706517-   Letter to Catherine Garypie,  Esq.,  Assistant
     706529    Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA,  Region  II, from  Mr.
               Robert P- Stein, Camhy, Karlinsky,  &  Stein  LLP,
               re: Grand Street Mercury Site: Hoboken N.J.,
               August 2, 1996. (Attachment:  (1) Attachment  G -
               Report of Underground Tank Removal, Quality  Tool &
               Die Co., Inc., prepared by Jenny Engineering
               Corporation, undated, and  (2)  Page  #277 -
               Laboratory Analysis - EP Toxicity Test, Leachate
               Analysis (from Vol. 45, no.  98), prepared  by Mr.
               M. Mullen,  Industrial Corrosion  Management,  Inc.,
               prepared for Jenny Engineering for  Quality Tool &
               Die Co., Inc., October 31, 1989.)
                                25
-------
     706530-
     706567
     706568-
     706574
     706575-
     706580
P.
706581-
706586
P.
706587-
706604
P.
706605-
706622
Documents provided to U.S.  EPA  by  representatives
of General Electric Company,  re: Cooper Hewitt
Electric Company  Certificates of Incorporation and
Annual Reports between  1910 and 1924, August 7,
1996.

Letter to General Electric  Company, CT Corporation
System, Registered Agent, from  Mr. Richard Caspe,
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA, Region  II,  re: General Notice
of Potential Liability, Grand Street Mercury
Superfund Site, 722 Grand Street,  Hoboken, N.J.,
August 12, 1996.  (Attachment: List of PRP's,
undated.)

Letter to Mr. David Pascale,  from  Mr. Richard L.
Caspe, Director, Emergency  and  Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA, Region  II,  re: General Notice
of Potential Liability, Grand Street Mercury
Superfund Site, 722 Grand Street,  Hoboken, N.J.,
August 12, 1996.  (Attachment: List of PRP's,
undated.)

Letter to Mr. John J. Pascale,  Sr., from Mr.
Richard L. Caspe, Director,  Emergency and Remedial
Response Division, U.S. EPA,  Region II, re:
General Notice of Potential  Liability, Grand
Street Mercury Superfund Site,  722 Grand Street,
Hoboken, N.J., August 12, 1996. (Attachment: List
of PRP's, undated.)

Request for Information Letter  to  Angstrom
Technologies, Inc. c/o Gael  Morris, from Mr.
Richard L. Caspe, Director,  Emergency and Remedial
Response Division, U.S. EPA,  Region II, re:  722
Grand Street Mercury Site,  Hoboken, New Jersey,
Request for Information Pursuant to( Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensatioh and Liability
Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601,  et seq!. , August 14,
1996. (Attachments: (1) Instructions for
Responding to Request for Information; (2)
Supplemental Request for Information; and  (3)
Certification of Answers to  Request for
Information.)

Request for Information Letter  to  Angstrom
Technologies, Inc. c/o The  Corporation, from Mr.
Richard L. Caspe, Director,  Emergency and Remedial
Response Division, U.S. EPA,  Region II, re:  722
Grand Street Mercury Site,  Hoboken, New Jersey,
Request for Information Pursuant to Comprehensive
                               26
-------
               Environmental  Response,  Compensation and Liability
               Act,  42 U.S.C.  Section  9601,  et seq.,  August 14,
               1996.  (Attachments:  (I)  Instructions for
               Responding  to  Request for  Information;  (2)
               Supplemental Request for Information;  and (3)
               Certification  of Answers to Request  for
               Information.)

P.   706623-   Request for Information  Letter  to Antex
     706640    Corporation c/o Mr. Ken  Masser,  from Mr.
               Richard L.  Caspe, Director,  Emergency and Remedial
               Response Division, U.S.  EPA,  Region  II,  re:   722
               Grand Street Mercury Site,  Hoboken,  New Jersey,
               Request for Information  Pursuant to  Comprehensive
               Environmental  Response,  Compensation and Liability
               Act,  42 U.S.C. Section 9601,  et seq.,  August 14,
               1996.  (Attachments:  (1)  Instructions for
               Responding  to  Request for  Information;  (2)
               Supplemental Request for Information;  and (3)
               Certification  of Answers to Request  for
               Information.)

P.   706641-   Request for Information  Letter  to Sperti Drug
     706662    Products c/o Mr. William J.  Walsh, from Mr.
               Richard L.  Caspe/ Director,  Emergency  and Remedial
               Response Division, U.S.  EPA,  Region  II,  re:   722
               Grand Street Mercury Site,  Hoboken,  New Jersey,
               Request for Information  Pursuant to  Comprehensive
               Environmental  Response,  Compensation and Liability
               Act,  42 U.S.C. Section 9601,  et seq.,  August 14,
               1996.  (Attachments:  (1)  Instructions for
               Responding  to  Request for  Information;  (2)
               Supplemental Request for Information;  and (3)
               Certification  of Answers to Request  for
               Information.)

P-   706663-   Request for Information  Letter  to Natmar, Inc.
     706680    c/o Mr. Ken Masser, from Mr.  Richard L.  Caspe,
               Director, Emergency and  Remedial Response
               Division, U.S. EPA, Region II,  re:   722 Grand
               Street Mercury Site, Hoboken, New Jersey, Request
               for Information Pursuant to Comprehensive
               Environmental  Response,  Compensatioh and Liability
               Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601,  et seq.,  August 14,
               1996.  (Attachments:  (1)  Instructions for
               Responding  to  Request for  Information;  (2)
               Supplemental Request for Information;  and (3)
               Certification  of Answers to Request  for
               Information.)
                                27
-------
706681-   Request for Information Letter to Faraday, Inc.,
706702    c/o Mr. Dennis Riley, Registered Agent, from Mr.
          Richard L. Caspe, Director, Emergency and Remedial
          Response Division, U.S. EPA, Region II, re:  722
          Grand Street Mercury Site, Hoboken, New Jersey,
          Request for Information Pursuant to Comprehensive
          Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
          Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601, et seq., August 14,
          1996. (Attachments:  (1) Instructions for
          Responding to Request for Information; (2)
          Supplemental Request for Information; and (3)
          Certification of Answers to Request for
          Information.)                      l

706703-   Documents given to U.S. EPA by General Electric,
706846    re: Grand Street, Hoboken, N.J. Site, Potentially
          Responsible Parties, September 18, 1996.

706847-   Request for Information Letter to Grand Street
706859    Artist Partnership c/o Ira Karasick, Esq., from
          Mr. Richard L. Caspe, Director, Emergency and
          Remedial Response Division, U.S. EPA, Region II,
          re: 722 Grand Street Mercury Site, Hoboken, New
          Jersey, Request for Information Pursuant to
          Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
          and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601, et
          seq., November 7, 1996. (Attachments: Instructions
          for Responding to Request for Information and
          Certification of Answers to Request' for
          Information.)                      i

706860-   Request for Information Letter to David and
706872    Sherrill Pascale, from Mr. Richard L. Caspe,
          Director, Emergency and Remedial Response
          Division, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Supplemental
          Request for Information Pursuant to Comprehensive
          Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
          Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601, et seq., November 7,
          1996. (Attachments:  (1) Instructions for
          Responding to Request for Information; (2)
          Supplemental Request for Information; and (3)
          Certification of Answers to Request for
          Information.)

706873-   Request for Information Letter to Westinghouse
706888    Electric Company, c/o Mr.  Michael H. Jordan,
          Chairman and CEO,  from Mr. Richard'L. Caspe,
          Director, Emergency and Remedial Response
          Division, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: 722 Grand
          Street Mercury Site, Hoboken, New Jersey, Request
          for Information Pursuant to Comprehensive
                           28
-------
                Environmental  Response,  Compensation and Liability
                Act,  42 U.S.C.  Section 9601,  et seq.,  November 15,
                1996.  (Attachments:  Instructions for Responding to
                Request for  Information and Certification of
                Answers to Request  for Information.)

P.   706889-    Letter to Ms.  Marissa  Wiggett,  Emergency and
     706897     Remedial Response Division,  and Catherine Garypie
                Esq., Assistant Regional Counsel,  U.S.  EPA,  Region
                II, from Mr. John F. Semple,  Sterns &  Weinroth,
                re: Response to EPA's  Request for  Information
                Pursuant to  42  U.S.C.  Section 9604,  et seqf
                November 15, 1996.  (Attachments:  (1) Responses to
                EPA's Section  104(e) Request,  from Mr.  John  J.
                Pascale, Sr.,  November 14,  1996, and (2)
                Certification  of Answers to Request for
                Information, signed  by Mr.  John Pascale,  Sr.,
                November 14, 1996.)

P.   706898-    Letter to Ms.  Marissa  Wiggett,  Emergency and
     706928     Remedial Response Division,  U.S. EPA,  Region II,
                from Mr. Robert P. Stein,  Cahmy, Karlinsky & Stein
                LLP, re: attached Response  of Grand Street Artists
                to  104(e) Request for  Information  Relating to  722
                Grand Street,  Hoboken,  New  Jersey,  December  11,
                1996.  (Note:  This document is  CONFIDENTIAL.   It
                can be located  in the  Superfund Record Center  at
                290 Broadway -  18th  Floor,  N.Y., N.Y.,  10007.)

P.   706929-    Redacted Letter to Ms.  Marissa  Wiggett,  Emergency
     706960     and Remedial Response  Division,  U.S. EPA,  Region
                II, from Mr. Robert  P-  Stein,  CamhyJ Karlinsky, &
                Stein, LLP, re: Response of Grand  Street Artists
                to  lQ4(e) Request for  Information  Relating to  722
                Grand Street,  Hoboken,  N.J.,  December  11,  1996.
                (Attachments:  (1) Responses to  Request for
                Information  from the Grand  Street  Artists,
                undated, and,  (2) Certification of Answers to
                Request for Information,  signed by Stephen Keough,
                undated.)

P.   706961-    Letter to Catherine  Garypie,  Esq.,  Assistant
     706964     Regional Counsel, U.S.  EPA,  Region II,  from  Mr.
                Michael Edelson, Hellring,  Lindeman, Goldstein, &
                Siegal, re: Grand Street Mercury Site,  Hoboken,
                N.J., December  30, 1996.  (Attachments:  (1)
                Supplemental Response  of Mr.  David P.  Pascale  to
                Request for Information,  December  24,  1996,  and,
                (2) Floor Plan  of Cooper Hewitt Electric Co.,
                Hoboken, N.J.,  prepared by  M.P.  Rolka,  Factory
                Insurance Association,  August 16,  1955.)
                                29
-------
7.8   Correspondence
     706965-
     706966
     706967-
     706967
P.
706968-
707206
     707207-
     707207
     707208-
     707208
Redacted record of telephone interview conducted
by Mr. Gerard B. Connolly, Investigator, U.S. EPA,
Site: Grand Street Mercury, February 6, 1996.

Record of telephone interview conducted by Mr.
Gerard B. Connolly, Investigator, U.S. EPA, Site:
Grand Street Mercury, February 6, 1996.  (Note:
This document is CONFIDENTIAL.  It can be located
in the Superfund Record Center at 290 Broadway -
18th Floor, N.Y., N.Y., 10007.)

Letter to Catherine Garypie Esq., Assistant
Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr.
Langley R. Shook, Sidley & Austin, re: Hoboken,
N.J., Mercury Site, June 27, 1996. (Attachments
(1) Page 123 from "Modern Glass Working and
Laboratory Technique",  written by M.C.  Nokes,  and,
(2) "A Complete Treatise on Illumination with
Mercury Vapor Lamps, written by Mr. George J.
Taylor.)

Letter to Mr. Jack Harmon, On-Scene Coordinator,
U.S. EPA, Region II, from Jane W. Gardner, Esq.,
Acting Manager, Remedial Programs, General
Electric Company, re: Grand Street Properties
Site, Hoboken, NJ/ August 27, 1996.

Letter to Catherine Garypie, Esq., Assistant
Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Michael Edelson, Hellring Lindeman Goldstein &
Siegal, re: Grand Street Mercury Superfund Site,
722 Grand Street, Hoboken, New Jersey, September
3, 1996.
9.0  NATURAL  RESOURCE TRUSTEES

9.4  Correspondence

P.   900001-    Memorandum for the record from Ms.  Lisa Rosman,
    900001     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
               (NOAA)  Associate CRC, re: Grand Street Mercury,
               Hoboken, N.J.,  May 13,  1997.
                                30
-------
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

10.1 Comments and Responses

P.   10.00001- Letter to Docket  Coordinator,  U.S.  EPA,
     10.00025  Headquarters,  CERCLA  Docket  Office,  from
               Langley R. Shook,  Esq.,  and  Margaret S.  Bass,
               Esq., Sidley  & Austin,  re: U.S.  EPA Proposed Rule,
               NPL Nomination, 61 Fed.  Reg.,  67678  (Dec.  23,
               1996), February 21, 1997.  (Attachment: Comments on
               the National  Priorities  List Nomination  of the
               Grand Street  Mercury  Site, Hoboken,  New  Jersey.)

10.2 Community Relations Plans

P-   10.00026- Letter to Ms. Katherine  Parker,  from Ms. Joanne M.
     10.00027  Wireman, Community Relations Manager,  ICF  Kaiser,
               re: Meeting to discuss the community's concerns
               regarding the Grand Street Mercury  Site, February
               14, 1997.

P-   10.00028- Letter to Ms. Janet Filameno,  from  Ms. Joanne M.
     10.00029  Wireman, Community Relations Manager,  ICF  Kaiser,
               re: Meeting to discuss the community's concerns
               regarding the Grand Street Mercury  Site, February
               14, 1997.

P.   10.00030- Letter to Ms. Donna Cahill,  Environment  Committee
     10.00030  of Hoboken, from  Ms.  Joanne  M. Wireman,  Community
               Relations Manager,  ICF Kaiser,   re:  Meeting on
               Wednesday, February 19,  at 7:00  p.m.  to  discuss
               the community's concerns regarding  the Grand
               Street Mercury Site,  February  14, 1997.

P.   10.00031- Letter to Mr. Gary Garetano, Assistant Director,
     10.00031  Hudson Regional Health Commission,  from  Ms. Joanne
               M. Wireman, Community Relations  Manager, ICF
               Kaiser,  re: Meeting  on  Thursday, February 20, at
               10:30 a.m. to discuss the community's concerns
               regarding the Grand Street Mercury  Site, February
               14, 1997.                           l

P.   10.00032- Letter to Mr. Frank J. Spano,  Principal, Hoboken
     10.00032  High School,  from Ms. Joanne M.  Wireman, Community
               Relations Manager,  ICF Kaiser,   re:  Meeting on
               Thursday, February 27, at 10:00  a.m.  to  discuss
               the community's concerns regarding  the Grand
               Street Mercury Site,  February  14, 1997.

P.   10.00033- Letter to Mr. Eugenic Notaro,  from  Ms. Joanne M.
     10.00033  Wireman, Community Relations Manager,  ICF  Kaiser,
                                31
-------
p.
p.
          re: Meeting on Thursday, February 20, at 9:00 a.m.
          to discuss the community's concerns regarding the
          Grand Street Mercury Site, February 14, 1997.

10.00034- Letter to Mr. Michael Solter, from Ms. Joanne M.
10.00034  Wireman, Community Relations Manager, ICF Kaiser,
          re: Meeting on Monday, March 10, at 7:00 p.m. to
          discuss the community's concerns regarding the
          Grand Street Mercury Site, February 17, 1997.

10.00035- Letter to Mr. Mark Machonis, Albee Services, from
10.00036  Ms. Joanne M. Wireman, Community Relations
          Manager, ICF Kaiser,  re: Community interviews
          regarding the Grand Street Mercury Site, February
          18, 1997.

10.00037- Letter to Ms. Donna Cahill, President, Environment
10.00037  Committee of Hoboken, from Ms.  Joanne M. Wireman,
          Community Relations Manager, ICF Kaiser, re:
          Development of Community Relations Plan, Grand
          Street Mercury Site, March 4, 1997.

10.00038- Letter to Ms. Mary Perry, Environment Committee of
10.00038  Hoboken, from Ms. Joanne M. Wireman; Community
          Relations Manager, ICF Kaiser,  re: Development of
          Community Relations Plan, Grand Street Mercury
          Site, March 4, 1997.

10.00039- Letter to Ms. Mollie Thompson,  Environment
10.00039  Committee of Hoboken, from Ms.  Joanne M. Wireman,
          Community Relations Manager, ICF Kaiser, re:
          Development of Community Relations Plan, Grand
          Street Mercury Site, March 4, 1997.

10.00040- Letter to Ms. Deborah Edwards,  Esq., Environment
10.00040  Committee of Hoboken, from Ms.  Joanne M. Wireman,
          Community Relations Manager, ICF Kaiser, re:
          Development of Community Relations Plan, Grand
          Street Mercury Site, March 4, 1997.

10.00041- Letter to Ms. Cynthia Silber, Vice President,
10.00041  Environment Committee of Hoboken, from Ms. Joanne
          M. Wireman, Community Relations Manager, ICF
          Kaiser, re: Development of Community Relations
          Plan, Grand Street Mercury Site, March 4, 1997.

10.00042- Letter to Ms. Katherine Parker and Mr. Gerald
10.00042  Norton, from Ms.  Joanne M. Wireman, Community
          Relations Manager, ICF Kaiser,  re: Development of
          Community Relations Plan, Grand Street Mercury
          Site, March 4, 1997.
                               32
-------
P.   10.00043- Letter to Ms. Janet  Filameno  and Mr.  Louis
     10.00043  Nel,  from Ms. Joanne M. Wireman,  Community
               Relations Manager, ICF Kaiser,  re:  Development of
               Community Relations  Plan,  Grand Street  Mercury
               Site, March 4,  1997.

P.   10.00044- Letter to Mr. Eugenio Notaro,  from  Ms.  Joanne M.
     10.00044  Wireman, Community Relations  Manager, ICF Kaiser,
               re: Development of Community  Relations  Plan, Grand
               Street Mercury Site,  March 4,  1997.)

P.   10.00045- Letter to Mr. Frank  J. Spano,  Principal, Hoboken
     10.00045  High  School, from Ms. Joanne  M.  Wireman, Community
               Relations Manager, ICF Kaiser,  re:  Development of
               Community Relations  Plan,  Grand Street  Mercury
               Site, March 4, 1997.

P.   10.00046- Letter to Mr. George  Crimmins,  Public Safety
     10.00046  Director, City Hall,  from  Ms.  Joanne M. Wireman,
               Community Relations Manager,  ICF Kaiser, re:
               Development of Community Relations  Plan, Grand
               Street Mercury Site,  March 4,  1997.

P.   10.00047- Letter to Mr. Gary Garetano,  Assistant  Director,
     10.00047  Hudson Regional Health Commission,  from Ms. Joanne
               M. Wireman, Community Relations Manager, ICF
               Kaiser, re: Development of Community Relations
               Plan, Grand Street Mercury Site,  March  4, 1997.

P.   10.00048- Letter to Mr. Michael Korman,  Public Information
     10.00048  Officer, City Hall,  from Ms.  Joanne'M.  Wireman,
               Community Relations Manager,  ICF Kaiser, re:
               Development of Community Relations  Plan, Grand
               Street Mercury Site,  March 4,  1997.

P.   10.00049- Letter to Mr. Frank S. Sasso,  Health Officer, City
     10.00049  of Hoboken Board of Health from Ms. Joanne M.
               Wireman, Community Relations  Manager, ICF Kaiser,
               re: Development of Community  Relations  Plan, Grand
               Street Mercury Site,  March 4,  1997.

P.   10.00050- Letter to Ms. Serena  Bocchino,  from Ms. Joanne M.
     10.00050  Wireman, Community Relations  Manager, ICF Kaiser,
               re: Development of Community  Relations  Plan, Grand
               Street Mercury Site,  March 17,  1997.

P.   10.00051- Letter to Ms. Shun Yi-Chen and Mr.  Ching Huang
     10.00051  Chung, from Ms. Joanne M.  Wireman,  Community
               Relations Manager, ICF Kaiser,  re:  Development of
               Community Relations  Plan,  Grand Street  Mercury
               Site, March 17, 1997.
                                33
-------
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
10.00052-
10.00052
10.00053-
10.00053
10.00054-
10.00054
10.00055-
10.00055
10.00056-
10.00056
Letter to Mr. Curtis Crystal, from Ms. Joanne M.
Wireman, Community Relations Manager, ICF Kaiser,
re: Development of Community Relations Plan, Grand
Street Mercury Site, March 17, 1997.

Letter to Mr. Matt Schley, from Ms. Joanne M.
Wireman, Community Relations Manager, ICF Kaiser,
re: Development of Community Relations Plan, Grand
Street Mercury Site, March 17, 1997.

Letter to Mark and Myra Graham, from Ms. Joanne M.
Wireman, Community Relations Manager, ICF Kaiser,
re: Development of Community Relations Plan, Grand
Street Mercury Site, March 17, 1997.

Letter to Ms. Meredith Lippman and Mr. John
Steadwell, from Ms. Joanne M. Wireman, Community
Relations Manager, ICF Kaiser, re: Development of
Community Relations Plan, Grand Street Mercury
Site, March 17, 1997.              :

Letter to Mr. Robert Schiffmacher, from Ms. Joanne
M. Wireman, Community Relations Manager, ICF
Kaiser, re: Development of Community Relations
Plan, Grand Street Mercury Site, March 17, 1997.
P.    10.00057- Letter to Mr.  Michael Solter,  from Ms. Joanne M.
     10.00057  Wireman,  Community Relations Manager,  ICF Kaiser,
               re:  Development of Community Relations Plan,  Grand
               Street Mercury Site,  March 17,  1997.

10.6 Fact Sheets and Press Releases

P.    10.00058- Newspaper article:  "Mercury turns  a dream  into  a
     10.00059  living nightmare",  written by Mr. Tom  Johnson,
               Star Ledger Newspaper,  November 3,  1996.

P.    10.00060- Press Release  of Senator Lautenberg and
     10.00063  Representative Pallone regarding completion of CIC
               off-site  removal,  and,  Statement of Representative
               Frank Pallone  responding to  a just released GOA
               report,  February 13,  1997.

P.    10.00064- News Release:   EPA Orders General Electric and
     10.00067  John Pascale,  Sr., To Take Over Superfund
               Activities At  Mercury-Contaminated Condo In
               Hoboken,  prepared by  U.S. EPA,  Region II, March 5,
               1997. (Attachment: Facsimile cover sheet to Mr.
               George Crimmins, Hoboken Office of Business
               Administration, from  Mr. John Hansen,  Remedial
               Project Manager, U.S. EPA Region II,  re: Grand
                                34
-------
               Street Mercury Site, March  6,  1997.)

P.   10.00068- Newspaper article:  "GE Is Told to Pay for
     10.00069  Hoboken Evacuees Housing, written  by  Mr.  Ronald
               Smothers, The New York  Times,  March 6,  1997.

P.   10.00070- Newspaper article:  "Mercury cleanup ordered",
     10.00070  written by Mr. Agustin  C. Torres,  The Jersey
               Journal, March 6, 1997.

P.   10.00071- Newspaper article: " "Mercury  condo" owners hail
     10.00071  federal pay-up order",  written by Mr.  Peralto C.
               Paul, The Jersey Journal, March 7, 1997.

P.   10.00072- Newspaper Article:  "GE files  suit over Mercury,
     10.00073  Countersuing artists group", written by Mr.
               Peralto C. Paul, The Jersey Journal,  March 8,
               1997.
Note: Attached are  indices  for the Removal Administrative Record
which is available  for  review at the U.S.  EPA's administrative
record repositories.
                                35
-------
From:        Jack Harmon, On-Scene Coordinator
            Removal Action Branch
            U.S. EPA Region E
            2890 Woodbridge Ave.
            Building 209
            Edison,  NT 08837

To:          Lenore Hyland, Librarian
            Hoboken Public Library
            500 Park Ave.
            Hoboken, New Jersey 07030

I acknowledge that I have received the  following documents from the U.S. EPA Region JJ
Office, pertaining to the Grand Street Site.

      Administrative  Record Name - Grand Street Site
      Administrative  Record Documents Numbers:
Signed:
Dare:
GSS 1.1001
GSS 1.1003
GSS 1.1051
GSS 1.1069
GSS 1.1073
GSS 1.2001
GSS 1.2005
GSS 1.2011
GSS 1.2012
GSS 1.2014
GSS 1.2034
GSS 1.2035
GSS 1.2060
GSS 1.2061
- 1.1002
- 1.1050
- 1.1068
- 1.1072
- 1.1100
- 1.2004
- 1.2010
- 1.2011
- 1.2013
- 1.2033
- 1.2034
- 1.2059
- 1.2060
- 1.2061
GSS 1.2062
GSS 1.2080
GSS 1.2082
GSS 1.2083
GSS 2.1001
GSS 2.1004
GSS 2. 1012
GSS 2. 1021
GSS 2. 1076
GSS 3.1001
GSS 3.1012
GSS 4. 1001
GSS 4.1003
GSS 5.1001
iltiJu V
I
V '

                                            1.2079
                                            1.2081
                                            1.2082
                                            1.2083
                                            2.1003
                                            2.1011
                                            2.1020
                                            2.
                                            2.
                                            3.
                                            3.
                                            4.
                                            4.
                                              1075
                                              1121
                                              1011
                                              1020
                                              1002
                                              1003
                                          - 5.1002
Please return this form to:
                                     Jack Harmon
                                     On-Scene Coordinator
                                     Removal Action Branch
                                     U.S. EPA Region H
                                     2890 Woodbridge Ave.
                                     Building 209
                                     Edison, NJ  08837
-------
                              GRAND STREET SITE

                        ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE

                             INDEX OF DOCUMENTS


The index of documents contains the following information about each document:

   Document #:        Site Code(three letters of site name)-Section, First Page-Section   Last  Page
                      EXAMPLE (ABC 1.1001 - 1.1002)
   Title:              Abstract of Document Contents
   Category:          Document Category/Section of Administrative Record File
   Author:            Writer and Affiliation
   Recipient:          Addressee or Public and Affiliation, if applicable
   Date:              When Document was Created or Transmitted

Note:  Items in the Administrative Record are for public access, and should be removed from the
file only  for copying. The cost of reproduction of the documents in the file is the responsibility
of the person requesting the copy.
-------
                              GRAND STREET SITE
                         ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
                              LIST OF DOCUMENTS
Document #: GSS   1.1001   1.1002
Title:        Concurrence on a Nationally Significant Removal Action at the Grand Street
             Mercury Site,  Hoboken, NJ
Category:    Background
Author:      Stephen D. Luftig, Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
             U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
Recipient:    Kathleen C. Callahan, Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division,
             U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
Date:        January 4, 1996

Document #: GSS   1.1003-1.1050
Title:        General Information Submission (GIS) & Site Evaluation Submission (SES)
Category:    Background
Author:      New  Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEPE)
Recipient:    N/A
Date:        Apnl 20,  1990

Document*: GSS   1.1051- 1.1068
Title:        Declaration of Environmental Restrictions and Grant of Easement for the Site
Category:    Background
Author:      Michael Edelson, Scarpone &. Edelson, Attorneys at Law
Recipient:    Michael Buriani, Case Manager,  NJDEPE
Date:        January 28, 1993

Document #: GSS   1.1069- 1.1072
Title:        Negative Declaration by Operator
Category:    Background
Author:      Kenneth T. Han, Assistant Director, Industrial Site Evaluation  Element.
             NJDEPE
Recipient:    David Pascale, Quality Tool &. Die Co., Inc.
Date:        February 8, 1993

Document #: GSS   1.1073   1.1100
Title:        Letter/Sampling  and Analysis Report
Category:    Background
Author:      Gary M. Annibal, CIH.  ENPAK Services Company. Inc.
Recipient:    Mr. Mike Salter. Grand  Street Artist Partners
Date:        March 28, 1995
FEBRUARY  12,  1997  -  REVISION
                                         ill
-------
Document #:  CSS - 1.2001   1.2004
Title:
Category:
Author:
Recipient:
Date:

Document #:
Title:
Category:
Author:
Recipient:
Date:
Initial Questionnaire  Memorandum of Agreement Application
Site Identification
Mike Desai, Albee Services
State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
August 29, 1995

GSS   1.2005-  1.2010
Letter Concerning Discovery of Mercury
Site Identification
N/A
Shun-Yi Chen & Ching-Huang Chung
October 26, 1995
Document #: GSS - 1.2011
Title:        Letter
Category:    Site Identification
Author:      David W Williamson, President, D.W.W. Enterprises, Inc.
Recipient:    Steve Keough, Grand Street Artist Partners
Date:        October 30,  1995

Document #: GSS  1.2012  1.2013
Title:        Letter  Progress Report
Category:    Site Identification
Author:      John Szalkowski, Senior Environmental Scientist, Environmental Waste
             Management Associates, Inc.
Recipient:    Mr. Steven Keough. Grand Street Artist Partnership
Date:        November 1, 1995

Document #: GSS  1.2014-1.2033
Title:        Mercury Vapor Survey
Category:    Site Identification
Author:      Detail Associates.  Inc.
Recipient:    Janice Filemeno, Kathy Parker, Residents. 722 Grand St.
Date:        November 8, 1995

Document^ GSS  1.2034  1.2034
Title:        Letter  Mercury Remediation
Category:    Site Identification
Author:      David W.  Williamson, President, D.W.W. Enterprises,  Inc.
Recipient:    Mr. John Szalkowski. Environmental Waste Management Associates. Inc.
Date:        November 16. 1995
 FEBRUARY  12,  1997  - REVISION
                             IV
-------
Document #: GSS   1.2035 - 1.2059
Title:        Mercury Abatement/Encapsulation Specifications
Category:    Site Identification
Author:      Environmental Waste Management Associates, Inc.
Recipient:    Grand Street Artist Partnership
Date:        N/A

Document #: GSS   1.2060  1.2060
Title:        Mercury Vapor Monitoring
Category:    Site Identification
Author:      James Pasquallo, New Jersey Department of Health
Recipient:    N/A
Date:        December 22, 1995

Document #: GSS   1.2061  1.2061
Title:        Letter
Category:    Site Identification
Author:      Richard J. Gtmello. Assistant Commissioner, Site Remediation Program, State
             of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Recipient:    Richard Salkie, USEPA Region II
Date:        January 02,  1996

Document #: GSS   1.2062  1.2079
Title:        Mercury Vapor Monitoring Survey
Category:    Site Identification
Author:      Thomas O'Neill, START PM
Recipient:    Jeff Bechtel, OSC, Response and Prevention Branch U. S. EPA, Region II
Date:        January 2, 1996

Document #: GSS   1.2080  1.2081
Title:        Removal  Request
Category:    Site Identification
Author:      Robert Van Fossen,  Assistant Director, Discharge Response Element State of
             New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Recipient:    Kathleen  C.  Callahan,  Director, Emergency and  Remedial Response Division,
             U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Date:        January 3, 1996

Document #: GSS   1.2082  1.2082
Title:        Order of  Health Officer
Category:    Site Identification
Author:      Frank S.  Sasso, MS. MSW. Health Officer, City of Hoboken Board of Health
Recipient:    N/A
Date:        January 4. 1996
 FEBRUARY 12,  1997  - REVISION
-------
Document #: GSS - 1.2083 - 1.2083
Title:
Category:
Author:
Recipient:
Date:

Document #:
Title:
Category:
Author:
Recipient:
Date:

Document #:
Title:
Category:
Author:
Recipient:
Date:

Document #:
Title:
Category:
Author:
Recipient:
Date:
Interim Protocol for Mercury Screening of Personal Belongings
Site Identification
N/A
Grand Street Mercury Site Residents
N/A

GSS  1.2084- 1.2089
Mercury Contamination
Site Identification
John Szalkowski, Senior Environmental Scientist, EWMA
Stephen Keough, Grand Street Artist Partnership
November 20,  1995

GSS - 1.2090
Region II Incident Notification Report
Site Identification
Margaret Chong, EPA
File
December 12, 1995

GSS  1.2091  1.2095
Referral of Casework in Bulk
Site Identification
Sue J. Smith. Director Office of Agency Liaison, The White House
EPA  35
Apnl26, 1995
Document #: GSS  1.2096  1.2097
Title:
Category:
Author:
Recipient:
Date:

Document #:
Title:
Category:
Author:
Recipient:
Date:

Document #:
Title:
Category:
Author:
Recipient:
Date:
Response to March 14,  1996 Letter
Site Identification (to be replaced at a later date)
EPA
Stephen Keough, Grand Street Artist Partnership
GSS  1.2098   1.2101
Henry Keough Letter of January 10, 1996
Site Identification
Bill Bradley, United States Senator
Jeanne Fox, Regional Administrator, USEPA
January 30,  1996

GSS  1.2102   1.2103
Response to January 30, 1996 Letter
Site Identification
Jeanne M. Fox, Regional Administrator, USEPA
Honorable Bill Bradley, United States Senate
April 8, 1996
FEBRUARY  12,  1997  - REVISION
                             VI
-------
Document #: GSS - 2.1001  2.1003
Title:       Authorization Form
Category:   Removal Response
Author:     John Blanchard, HQ Project Officer
Recipient:   Jack Harmon, On-Scene Coordinator
Date:       January 17, 1996

Document #: GSS  2.1004  2.1011
Title:       Results of Mercury  Vapor Monitoring Survey   Personal Belongings
Category:   Removal Response
Author:     Thomas O'Neill, START PM
Recipient:   Jeff Bechtel, OSC, Response and Prevention Branch U.S. EPA, Region II
Date:       January 22, 1996

Document #: GSS - 2.1012  2.1020
Title:       Executive Summary Report  Grand Street Mercury Site, Hoboken, NJ
Category:   Removal Response
Author:     Michael Morganti, REAC Task Leader
Recipient:   Rodney Turpin, U.S.  EPA/ERT Work Assignment Manager
Date:       February 13,  1996

Document #: GSS  2.1021  2.1075
Title:       Air Quality Modeling for Grand Street Mercury Site, Hoboken, NJ
Category:   Removal Response
Author:     Rod Turpin, Senior Environmental Scientist
Recipient:   Jack Harmon, On-Scene Coordinator
Date:       February 16,  1996

Document #: GSS  2.1076  2.1121
Title:       Action Memorandum
Category:   Removal Response
Author:     Jack D. Harmon. On-Scene Coordinator
Recipient:   Jeanne M. Fox
Date:       March 21, 1996

Document #: GSS  2.2001  2.2011
Title:       Sampling QA/QC Workplan, 722 Grand Street
Category:   Removal Response
Author:     Thomas O'Neill, Region II START
Recipient:   Jeff Bechtel, OSC. EPA Region II
Date:       January 4, 1996

Document #: GSS - 2.2012  2.2027
Title:       Final Report for Phase 1 and 2 of ERT Activities
Category:   Removal Response
Author:     Rod Turpin, Senior Environmental Scientist. EPA ERT
Recipient:   Jack Harmon, OSC, EPA Region II
Date:       February 15.  1996
FEBRUARY  12
1997 -  REVISION
                                        VII
-------
Document #:
Title:
Category:
Author:
Recipient:
Date:

Document #:
Title:
Category:
Author:
Recipient:
Date:

Document #:
Title:
Category:
Author:
Recipient:
Date:

Document #:
Title:
Category:
Author:
Recipient:
Date:

Document #:
Title:
Category:
Author:

Recipient:
Date:
GSS  2.2028  2.2038
Sampling QA/QC Workplan and Sample Results, 725 Adams Street
Removal Response
Thomas O'Neill, Region II START
Jack Harmon. OSC, EPA Region II
April  1996

GSS  2.2039  2.2054
Sampling QA/QC Workplan Mercury Contamination Study
Removal Response
Thomas O'Neill, Region II START
Jack Harmon, OSC, EPA Region II
August 8, 1996

GSS - 2.2055  2.2080
Final Report, Mercury Contamination Investigation
Removal Response
Thomas O'Neill, Region II START
Jack Harmon, OSC, EPA Region II
October 7, 1996

GSS -2.3001 -2.3006
National Priorities List Nomination of the Grand Street Mercury, NJ Site
Removal Response
Richard L. Caspe, Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
David Evans, Director, State, Tribal, and Site Identification Center
November 18, 1996

GSS  3.1001  3.1011
Health Consultation
Health Assessments
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, ,
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Hoboken Board of Health
Januarv 3, 1996
Document #:  GSS  3.1012  3.1020
Title:        Public Health Advisory
Category:    Health Assessments
Author:      U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,
             Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Recipient:    N/A
Date:        January 22, 1996
FEBRUARY 12,   19y7  - REVISION
                            vm
-------
Document #:  GSS   3.2001
Title:        Correspondence
Category:    Health Assessments
Author:      Elin Gursky, Sc.D., Senior Assistant Commissioner, State of New Jersey,
             Department of Health
Recipient:    Frank Sasso, Health Officer, Hoboken Health Department
Date:        January 4,  1996

Document #:  GSS   3.3001 - 3.3024
Title:        Hazardous  Substance Database (HSDB)  Mercury
Category:    Health Assessments
Author:      N/A
Recipient:    N/A
Date:        N/A

Document #:  GSS   3.3025  3.3028
Title:        NIOSH Method 6009 Mercury
Category:    Health Assessments
Author:      NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods
Recipient:    N/A
Date:        5/15/89

Document #:  GSS   3.3029  3.3030
Title:        Material Safety Data Sheet for Mercury (Revision C)
Category:    Health Assessments
Author:      Genium Publishing Corporation
Recipient:    N/A
Date:        August 1988

Document #:  GSS   3.3031  3.3033
Title:        CAMEO Chemical Report
Category:    Health Assessments
Author:      CAMEO Response Information, NOAA
Recipient:    N/A
Date:        December  12.  1996

Document #:  GSS   4.1001  4.1002
Title:        Mercury Exposure and Health
Category:    Public Participation   Fact Sheet
Author:      Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Recipient:    New Jersey Department of Health
Date:        January 4,  1996
FEBRUARY  12,  1997 -  REVISION
IX
-------
Document #:  GSS - 4.1003 - 4.1003
Title:         Notice of Public Availability
Category:    Public Participation  Public Notice
Author:      N/A
Recipient:    N/A
Date:         N/A

Document #:  GSS  4.2001   4.2002
Title:         Hoboken Mercury Scare
Category:    Public Participation  Newspaper Article
Author:      Beth Ellen Fand, Jersey Journal
Recipient:    N/A
Date:         December 29, 1995

Document #:  GSS - 4.2003
Title:         Mercury Driving Artists From  Building
Category:    Public Participation - Newspaper Article
Author:      Jim Efstatiou, The Record
Recipient:    N/A
Date:         December 30, 1995

Document #:  GSS  4.2004
Title:         Few Artists Ready to Leave Mercury-Tainted Condo
Category:    Public Participation  Newspaper Article
Author:      Richard  Cowen, The Record
Recipient:    N/A
Date:         December 31. 1995

Document #:  GSS   4.2005
Title:         High Mercury Level Spurs Hoboken to call for Evacuation of Condos
Category:    Public Participation  Newspaper Article
Author:      Gene Ruffini. The Star Ledger
Recipient:    N/A
Date:         December 31, 1995

Document #:  GSS - 4.2006
Title:         Cops Halt Move From Tainted Condos
Category:    Public Participation - Newspaper Article
Author:      Randy Diamond, The Record
Recipient:    N/A
Date:         January  1, 1996

Document #:  GSS   4.2007  4.2008
Title:         Residents Face Cold Reality on Toxic Site
Category:    Public Participation   Newspaper Article
Author:      Elizabeth Moore, Star Ledger
Recipient:    N/A
Date:         January  1. 1996
 FEBRUARY  12,  1997  -  REVISION
-------
Document #:  CSS  4.2009   4.2012
Title:        A Toxic Nightmare in Hoboken
Category:    Public Participation - Newspaper Article
Author:      Ravi Nessman,  The Associated Press
Recipient:    N/A
Date:        January 27,  1996

Document #:  GSS - 4.2013
Title:        Dream Home Turns into Big Nightmare
Category:    Public Participation - Newspaper Article
Author:      The Associated  Press
Recipient:    N/A
Date:        January 27,  1996

Document #:  GSS  4.2014
Title:        GE to Reimburse Mercury Condominium Residents
Category:    Public Participation - Newspaper Article
Author:      Beth Ellen Fand, Jersey Journal
Recipient:    N/A
Date:        January 27,  1996

Document #:  GSS  4.2015   4.2017
Title:        ATSDR Finds Unsafe Mercury Levels in N.J. Condominium; DEP Blamed
Category:    Public Participation - Newsletter
Author:      Hazardous Waste News
Recipient:    N/A
Date:        February 5,  1996

Document #:  GSS  4.2018-4.2019
Title:        Ad Seeks Mercury Polluters
Category:    Public Participation - Newspaper Article
Author:      Beth Ellen Fand. Jersey Journal
Recipient:    N/A
Date:        February 6,  1996

Document #:  GSS  4.2020
Title:        Feds Gauge Mercury's Spread
Category:    Public Participation - Newspaper Article
Author:      Beth Ellen Fand. Jersey Journal
Recipient:    N/A
Date:        April 4, 1996

Document #:  GSS - 4.2021   4.2022
Title:        Mercury Pollutes 2nd Site
Category:    Public Participation - Newspaper Article
Author:      Beth Ellen Fand, Jersey Journal
Recipient:    N/A
Date:        May 9, 1996
FEBRUARY  12,  1997 -  REVISION
XI
-------
Document #: GSS  4.2023
Title:        Cleanup Bills are Assessed
Category:    Public Participation - Newspaper Article
Author:      Sarah Kershaw, New York Times
Recipient:    N/A
Date:        August 17, 1996

Document #: GSS - 4.2024 - 4.2025
Title:        Someone to Blame
Category:    Public Participation  Newspaper Article
Author:      Caren Lissner, The Hoboken Reporter
Recipient:    N/A
Date:        August 18, 1996

Document #: GSS - 4.2026
Title:        In Hoboken, a Dream is Poisoned by  Mercury
Category:    Public Participation - Newspaper Article
Author:      Steve Strunsky, New York Times
Recipient:    N/A
Date:        September 29, 1996

Document #: GSS - 4.2027  .4.2030
Title:        Jazz on Canvas
Category:    Public Participation   Newspaper Article
Author:     Barry Schwabsky, New York Times
Recipient:   N/A
Date:        October 6, 1996

Document #: GSS  4.2031
Title:        Evacuated Artists Plan Show
Category:    Public Participation   Newspaper Article
Author:     Terry Pristin,  New York Times
Recipient:   N/A
Date:        October 16, 1996

Document #: GSS  4.2032
Title:         ...While in Hoboken, Artists Hold Open  House
Category:     Public Participation - Newspaper Article
Author:     Karen DeMasters, New York Times
Recipient:    N/A
Date:         October 20. 1996
 FEBRUARY  12,  1997 -  REVISION
xn
-------
Document tf: GSS   4.2033  4.2034
Title:        Mercury Turns a Dream into a Living Nightmare
Category:    Public Participation  Newspaper Article
Author:      Tom Johnson, Star-Ledger
Recipient:    N/A
Date:        November 3, 1996

Document #: GSS   4.2035
Title:        EPA Adds Seven Sites to Superfund Toxic Waste List
Category:    Public Participation  Newspaper Article
Author:      Reuters Financial Service
Recipient:    N/A
Date:        December 20, 1996

Document #: GSS   4.3001  4.3014
Title:        National Priorities  List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Proposed
             Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 246
Category:    Public Participation
Author:      Environmental Protection Agency
Recipient:    N/A
Date:        December 23, 1996

Document #: GSS   4.4001  4.4004
Title:        Information Update
Category:    Public Participation
Author:      Irmee Huhn, EPA
Recipient:    722 Grand Street Residents
Date:        Apnl 11, 1996

Document #: GSS   4.4005  4.4008
Title:        Information Update
Category:    Public Participation
Author:      Irmee Huhn, EPA
Recipient:    722 Grand Street Residents
Date:        September 3, 1996

Document #: GSS   4.4009  4.4024
Title:        Documents Given  to Residents of 722 Grand Street in Meetings with Residents
             on 12/17/96 and 12/18/96
Category:    Public Participation
Author:      EPA Region II
Recipient:    722 Grand Street Residents
Date:        12/17/96 and 12/18/96
FEBRUARY  12,  1997  - REVISION
xin
-------
Document #:
Title:
Category:
Author:
Recipient:
Date:
GSS  4.5001 - 4.5002
722 Grand Street Mercury Site, Hoboken, NJ
Public Participation
George Crimmins, Business Administrator, Hoboken
Richard L. Caspe, Director Emergency-Remedial Response Division,  USEPA
December 19, 1996
Document #:  GSS  4.5003   4.5004
Title:         722 Grand Street Mercury Site, Hoboken, NJ
Category:    Public Participation
Author:      Richard L. Caspe,  Director Emergency & Remedial Response Division, USEPA
Recipient:    George Crimmins,  Business Administrator, Hoboken
Date:         January 9, 1997

Document #:  GSS - 5.1001 - 5.1002
Title:         EPA  Regional Guidance Documents
Category:    Technical Source and Guidance Documents
Author:      N/A
Recipient:    File
Date:         N/A

Document #:  GSS - 6.1001   6.1006
Title:         General Notice of Potential Liability
Category:    Enforcement
Author:      Richard L. Caspe,  Director Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Recipient:    David Pascale
Date:         August 12,  1996

Document #:  GSS  6.1007   6.1012
Title:
Category:
Author:
Recipient:
Date:

Document #:
Title:
Category:
Author:
Recipient:
Date:

Document #:
Title:
Category:
Author:
Recipient:
Date:
General Notice of Potential Liability
Enforcement
Richard L. Caspe, Director Emergency and Remedial Response Division
John J. Pascale. Sr.
August 12,  1996

GSS  6.1013  6.1018
General Notice of Potential Liability
Enforcement
Richard L. Caspe, Director Emergency and Remedial Response Division
General Electric Corporation
August 12,  1996

GSS -6.1019
Grand Street Properties Site, Hoboken, NJ
Enforcement
Jane W. Gardner, Esq., General Electric Company
Jack Harmon, On-Scene Coordinator, EPA
August 27,  1996
FEBRUARY  12,  1997 -  REVISION
                            xiv
-------
Document #:  GSS   6.1020
Title:        Grand Street Mercury Superfund Site
Category:    Enforcement
Author:      Michael Edelson, Hellring Lindeman Goldstein &. Siegal
Recipient:    Catherine Garypie, Esq. EPA
Date:        September 3, 1996

Document #:  GSS   6.1021   6.1049
Title:        Grand Street Mercury Site, Hoboken, NJ
Category:    Enforcement
Author:      Rachel Jeanne Lehr, Deputy Attorney General, State of New Jersey
Recipient:    Catherine Garypie, Esq. EPA
Date:        December 24, 1996

Document #:  GSS   6.1050   6.1092
Title:        Grand Street Mercury Site, Hoboken, NJ
Category:    Enforcement
Author:      Jane W Gardner. Esq., General Electnc Company
Recipient:    Catherine Garypie, Esq., EPA
Date:        January 22, 1997
FEBRUARY  12,  1997  -  REVISION
-------
prom:       Jack Harmon, On-Scene Coordinator
           Removal Action Branch
           U.S. EPA Region II
           2890 Woodbridge Ave.
           Building 209
           Edison, NJ  08837

To:         Lenore Hyland, Librarian
           Hoboken Public Library
           500 Park Ave.
           Hoboken, New Jersey 07030

I acknowledge that I have received the following documents from the U.S. EPA Region II Office,
pertaining to the Grand Street Site.

     Administrative Record Name -- Grand Street Site
     Administrative Record Documents Numbers:
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
.2084
.2090
.2091
.2096
.2098
.2102
.2001
.2012
.2028
.2039
.2055
.3001
- 1

- 1
1
- 1
1
2
- 2
. 2
2
2
. 2
.2089

.2095
.2097
.2101
.2103
.2011
.2027
.2038
.2054
.2080
.3006
3.2001
3
3
3
-i
j
.3001
.3025
.3029
.3031
-3
-3
3
3
.3024
.3028
.3030
.3033
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
GSS
4
4
4
4
A
*T
A
*T
A
T
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
-T
4
.2001
.2003
.2004
.2006
.2007
.2009
.2013
.2014
.2015
.2018
.2020
.2021
.2023
.2024
.2026
.2027
.2005
-4



-4
- 4


-4
-4

4

4

-4

.2002



.2008
.2012


.2017
.2019

.2022

.2025

.2030

Signed:

Date:
GSS 4.
GSS 4.
GSS 4.
GSS 4.
GSS 4.
GSS 4.
GSS 4.
GSS 4.
GSS 4.
GSS 4.
GSS 6.
GSS 6.
GSS 6.
GSS 6.
GSS 6.
GSS 6.
GSS 6.
2031
2032
2033-
2035
3001 -
4001 -
4005
4009-
5001 -
5003
1001 -
1007-
1013
1019
1020
1021 -
1050-


4.2034

4.3014
4.4004
4.4008
4.4024
4.5002
4.5004
6.1006
6.1012
6.1018


6. 1049
6.1092
Please return this form to:
Jack Harmon
On-Scene Coordinator
Removal Action Branch
U.S. EPA Region II
2890 Woodbridge Ave.
Building 209
Edison,  NJ 08837
-------
            UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY
                                     REGION II
                           EDISON. NEW JERSEY 08837
From:       Jack Harmon, On-Scene Coordinator
            Removal Action Branch
            U.S. EPA Region II
            2890 Woodbndge Ave.
            Building 209
            Edison,  NJ 08837

To:         Lenore Hyland, Librarian
            Hoboken Public Library
            500 Park Ave.
            Hoboken,  New Jersey 07030

I acknowledge that I have  received the following documents from the U.S. EPA Region U Office,
pertaining to the Grand Street Site.

      Administrative  Record Name — Grand Street Site
      Administrative  Record Documents Numbers:

      GSS2.1122 -2.1152
      GSS2.1153 2.1411
      GSS2.1412 2.1514
Signed:

Date:
Please return this form to:               Jack Harmon
                                     On-Scene Coordinator
                                     Removal Action Branch
                                     U.S. EPA Region n
                                     2890 Woodbridge Ave.
                                     Bldg. 209
                                     Edison, NJ 08837
-------
                          ROD FACT SHEET

SITE	
Name           :  Grand Street Mercury Site
Location/State :  Hoboken, NJ
EPA Region     :  II
HRS Score (date): not scored, NCP Sec.300.425(c)(3)
Site ID #      :  NJ0001327733

ROD	
Date Signed: September 30, 1997
Remedy:  temporary and permanent relocation of residents, building
        demolition, soil remediation and offsite disposal of all
        waste above risk-basd levels
Operating Unit Number: OU-1
Capital  cost: $13,861,000  (in 1997 dollars)
Construction Completion: December 1999
0 & M per year:
Present  worth: $13,861,000 (no O&M)
LEAD
Remedial:  Superfund lead
Enforcement:  to be determined
Primary contact: John Hansen  (212) 637-3915
Secondary contact: Lisa Jackson  (212) 637-4380
Main PRP(s):  General Electric Company
PRP Contact:  Dave Thompson  (610)  992-7890
WASTE
Type:  mercury
Medium: building components and soil
Origin: attributed to mishandling during mercury vapor lamp
      manufacture; possible spill release to exterior soil.
Est. quantity: 1,000 Ibs liquid elemental mercury in building
-------