PB95-963807
EPA/ROD/R02-95/253
October 1995
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
U.S. Radium Corporation
Operable Unit 2, Essex County, NJ
8/29/1995
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
DATE:
JECT: Record of Decision for the U.S. Radium Corporation Site
FROM: Kathleen C. Callahan, Director
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
TO: Jeanne M. Fox
Regional Administrator
Attached for your approval is the Record of Decision (ROD) for
the U.S. Radium Corporation site. The site is located in Essex
County, New Jersey.
The selected remedial action represents the second of two planned
operable units for the site. The ROD for the first operable
unit, signed September 21, 1993, selected an action to address
all of the residential properties and most of the commercial
properties in the Vicinity and Satellite Properties study areas.
This second action will address the High and Alden Streets study
area (the former U.S. Radium processing plant) and the remaining
commercial properties not addressed in the first operable unit.
Ground water is not addressed in either this or the earlier
decision document. If an action is needed for the ground water,
it will be addressed in a future decision document.
Under the remedy outlined in the attached ROD, radium-
contaminated material will be excavated from the affected
properties and transported for off-site disposal. The remedy
will require approximately two years to fully implement at an
estimated cost of $22 million.
The results of the remedial investigation and feasibility study
and the Proposed Plan for this action were released to the public
on May 22, 1995. The public comment period ended on June 21,
1995. In addition, a public meeting was held on June l, 1995.
The comments received from local residents and officials on the
proposed remedial action did not necessitate a modification of
the proposed remedy.
The ROD was developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and has been reviewed by the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, and the appropriate offices within
Region II and Headquarters. Their input and comments are
reflected in this document.
If you have any questions concerning this ROD, I will be happy to
discuss them at your convenience.
Attachment
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION
U.S. Radium Corporation
Site Name and Location
U.S. Radium Corporation, Essex County, New Jersey
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the former radium processing plant and four commercial properties
that comprise the second operable unit of the U.S. Radium
Corporation site. The remedial action was chosen in accordance
with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986, and, to the extent practicable, the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.
This decision is based on the administrative record for the site.
The State of New Jersey concurs with the selected remedy.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
U.S. Radium Corporation site, if not addressed by implementing
the response action selected in this Record of Decision, may
present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public
health, welfare or the environment.
Description of the Remedy
The remedy described in this document represents the second
operable unit for the U.S. Radium Corporation site. It addresses
the principal threats to human health and the environment
associated with the properties that make up the former U.S.
Radium Corporation ore-processing plant, as well as four
nonadjacent commercial properties, and is the final remedial
action for those properties.
A previous Record of Decision, signed on September 21, 1993,
selected a remedy for contaminated residential properties and the
remaining commercial properties that comprise the U.S. Radium
site. Ground water has not been addressed in either this or the
earlier Record of Decision. If an action is needed for the
ground water, it will be addressed in a future decision document.
-------
-2-
The major components of the selected remedy for the second
operable unit include:
Excavation/removal of the radium-contaminated material above
remedial action objectives from the designated properties;
Off-site disposal of the radium-contaminated material; and
Appropriate environmental monitoring to ensure the
effectiveness of the remedy.
Declarations
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with federal and state requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes.
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable for this site. However, because
treatment of the principal threats of the site was not found to
be practicable, this remedy does not satisfy the statutory
preference for treatment as a principal element.
Because this remedy will not result in hazardous substances
remaining on the addressed properties above levels that allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a five-year review of
this action will not be required.
Jeanne M. Jf
-------
Christine Todd Whitman
Governor
Department of Environmental Protection
Robert C. Shinn, Jr.
Commissioner
Ms. Jean M. Fox, Regional Administrator
USEPA - Region H
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
Dear Ms. Fox:
Subject:
US Radium Corporation Second Operable Unit
Concurrence Letter
The Department has reviewed the draft final Record of Decision (ROD) for the subject site
and concurs with the following remedy for the second operable unit.
Excavation/removal of the radium-contaminated material above remedial
action objectives from the designated properties:
Offsite disposal of the radium-contaminated material; and
Appropriate environmental monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of
the remedy.
As previously stated in the attached letter dated May 22,1995 the Department concurs with
the selected remedy; however, the Department does not support the exclusion of S-1070
(Industrial Site Recovery Act, P.L. 1993, c.139) as State ARARs (applicable, or relevant and
appropriate requirements) for this site.
Thanking you for the opportunity to comment and participate in the Superfund process.
Robert C. Shinn, Jr
Commissioner
Attachment
AS/lmj
c
New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
-------
uf
Christine Teeid Whitman Department of Environmental Protection Robert C Shinn, Jr,
Governor Commission
MAY 2 21995
KB. Katherine Callahan
DSEPA - Region II
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1SCS
Dear Ms. Callahan:
SUBJECT: US Radium Corporation Superfund Site Second Operable Unit
Proposed Plan
The Department has reviewed the Proposed Plan of the second operable unit for the
U.S. Radium Corporation site and is in agreement with the proposed remedy.
However, the Department does not support the exclusion of S-1070 (Industrial Site
Recovery Act, P.L. 1993, c.139) as State "ARARs" (applicable, or relevant and
appropriate requirements) for this site. The Department has decided to support
the preferred alternative. In view of the fact that the selected remedy,
excavation and off-site disposal, would achieve the Department's objective of
cleanup to background, since the first two feet thickness of soil would not
contain above background, and that any residually contaminated material remaining
on the remediated properties would not be greater than two feet in thickness.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the super fund process
iioner
( ^
AS:jb
New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
Recycled Paper
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
U.S. Radium Corporation site
Second Operable Unit
High and Alden Streets Properties
and Related Properties
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The U.S. Radium Corporation site consists of three study areas
located in several communities of Essex County in northeastern
New Jersey about 12 miles west of New York City. The study areas
are referred to as the High and Alden Streets Properties, the
Vicinity Properties and the Satellite Properties.
The High and Alden Streets Properties study area covers
approximately two acres in the City of Orange. The Vicinity
Properties study area covers approximately 25 acres and includes
about 330 properties in Orange and in the Town of West Orange.
The Satellite Properties study area includes approximately 50
noncontiguous single properties or small clusters of properties
located primarily in Orange, with a few properties in the
municipalities of East Orange and South Orange. Figures 1, 2 and
3 show the locations of the study areas.
The High and Alden Streets Properties and Vicinity Properties
study areas are located in a well-established, urban residential
neighborhood with single- and multi-family homes, interspersed
with commercial and light-industrial establishments. The
Satellite Properties are located in both commercial and
residential areas of Essex County.
wigwam Brook, which originates in the Watchung Mountains, passes
through the Vicinity Properties study area and along side the
High and Alden Streets Properties study area. Ground water
resources within the study areas are an unconsolidated, glacial-
overburden aquifer, and the deeper, fractured-bedrock aquifer of
the underlying Brunswick Formation. The majority of the drinking
water supplies for the towns within the study areas are drawn
from surface reservoirs in northern New Jersey, although some
deep bedrock aquifer wells located nearby the study areas are
used for water supply.
Soil and other material at certain properties within the study
areas are contaminated to varying degrees with radioactive waste
materials suspected to have originated from radium processing or
utilization by the former U.S. Radium Corporation.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The U.S. Radium Corporation, formerly known as the Radium
Luminous Materials Corporation, operated a facility at the High
and Alden Streets Properties study area from 1915 through 1926.
-------
U.S. Radium also operated facilities at various Satellite
Properties in the early 1900s. A primary activity at the High
and Alden Streets Properties was the extraction and purification
of radium from carnotite ore. Because each ton of ore produced
only a few milligrams of radium, large volumes of ore were
required. Large quantities of process wastes, or "tailings",
were generated which contained radioactive elements at elevated
levels. The tailings were temporarily discarded on unused areas
of the facility and ultimately disposed of off site.
In addition to the production and sale of radium itself, the U.S.
Radium Corporation also manufactured a radium-based luminous
paint. At one time, the company employed over 100 workers to
paint instruments and watch dials with this luminous paint.
Reports indicate that dial painting took place at the High and
Alden Streets Properties and at several Satellite Properties.
U.S. Radium Corporation discontinued radium processing operations
in 1926, while continuing its dial painting business. U.S.
Radium subsequently sold its properties at High and Alden Streets
in the 1940s. No subsequent occupants of the properties are
known to have processed or used radium.
In 1979, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
initiated a program to identify and investigate locations within
New Jersey where radium processing activities had taken place.
The former U.S. Radium Corporation facility was included in this
program. In May 1981, EPA conducted an aerial gamma radiation
survey covering approximately 12 square miles centered on the
High and Alden Streets Properties. This aerial survey located
about 25 acres around the High and Alden Streets Properties where
elevated readings of gamma radiation were detected. This 25-acre
area corresponds to the approximate limits of the vicinity
Properties study area. This same survey identified areas of
elevated gamma radiation in the nearby communities of Montclair,
West Orange and Glen Ridge; the affected properties in these
areas comprise two other Superfund sites, the Montclair/West
Orange Radium site and the Glen Ridge Radium site (the "MWG
sites").
In 1982, the site was proposed for inclusion on the National
Priorities List (NPL) of Superfund sites. The site was placed on
the NPL in September 1983.
Ground level surveys conducted in the early 1980s showed elevated
gamma radiation and radon gas in most of the buildings on the
High and Alden Streets Properties. In 1984, NJDEP performed
preliminary field investigations of 31 properties near the
facility. While these studies found elevated levels of gamma
radiation at some properties, NJDEP found only small pockets of
-------
radium-contaminated soil, and detected no elevated radon gas
levels.
Working from U.S. Radium Corporation documents and other
historical records, EPA and NJDEP initially identified 22
Satellite Properties. Initial investigations of some of the
Satellite Properties in 1983 and 1986 indicated elevated levels
of gamma radiation, with a few instances of elevated radon gas in
basements. Additional Satellite Properties have been identified
through investigations of properties adjacent to the first 22
Satellite Properties, in some cases resulting in small clusters
of properties with similar conditions.
In July 1983, EPA notified five companies and one individual that
they had been identified as potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) for the site. EPA requested a response outlining the
activities that the PRPs would be willing to undertake. One PRP,
Safety Light Corporation, a corporate successor to the U.S.
Radium Corporation, responded that it was willing to perform
response activities at the site.
In 1983, EPA and Safety Light Corporation commenced the first of
several unsuccessful efforts to negotiate an agreement whereby
Safety Light would undertake response activities at the site,
under EPA supervision. The last of these efforts ended in
December 1988 when Safety Light declined to perform any work,
other than a removal action to replace the inadequate security
fence around the High and Alden Streets Properties. Safety Light
began the fence construction in 1989; however, EPA completed the
work because of problems which arose during the removal action.
No PRPs have agreed to perform any additional work.
EPA initiated a remedial investigation and feasibility study
(RI/FS) in October 1989 to determine the nature and extent of
contamination at the U.S. Radium site. While preliminary field
investigations did not reveal extensive radiological
contamination beyond the limits of the High and Alden Streets
study area, EPA elected to perform a comprehensive investigation
of what would become about 330 vicinity and 50 Satellite
Properties concurrent with its studies of the High and Alden
Streets Properties.
EPA's investigations of the Vicinity and Satellite properties
involved a separate field investigation of several hundred mostly
residential, private properties. By October 1992, over 160
investigations had been performed, and 63 radium-contaminated
properties had been identified.
As part of a second removal action begun in 1991, EPA installed
radon mitigation systems and gamma radiation shielding at four
properties where elevated radiation levels were detected early in
the RI.
-------
As with many Superfund sites, the problems at the U.S. Radium
Corporation site are complex. Consequently, EPA has organized
the site into separate phases or operable units. In October
1992, with the investigations of the former plant site still
ongoing, EPA elected to organize the Vicinity and Satellite
Properties study areas into a first operable unit (OU1) ', and to
propose a remedy for radium-contaminated properties within those
study areas. With about 160 investigations completed, it was
clear that performing studies on the remaining 220 properties
would not assist EPA in better understanding the problem, and
would unnecessarily delay the process of proposing a remedy.
A Proposed Plan for OU1 of the U.S. Radium Corporation site was
released for public comment in April 1993, along with a first
RI/FS report, which documented the nature and extent of
contamination at the Vicinity and Satellite Properties and
provided a detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives.
After consideration of public comments, which were generally
supportive of EPA's preferred alternative, EPA issued a Record of
Decision (ROD) for the site, signed on- September 21, 1993, which
documented the selected remedy for OU1. The remedy for the OU1
properties involves excavation and off-site disposal of the
radium-contaminated material.
Regarding the OU1 selected remedy, the remedial design associated
with the first group of OU1 properties is currently being
prepared. It is anticipated that remedial construction
activities at these properties will begin in early 1996.
Property investigations have continued since the 1993 ROD; over
300 property investigations have now been completed. As a
result, the number of properties included in OU1 has risen to
about 75.
HIGHLIGHTS OP COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
A Community Relations Plan was developed to ensure the public
opportunities for involvement in site-related decisions. In
addition, the Community Relations Plan was used by EPA to
determine, based on community interviews, activities to ensure
public involvement and to provide opportunities for the community
to learn about the site.
EPA held a public meeting, conducted a series of public
availability sessions and distributed a fact sheet in February
1991 to explain the RI/FS to the public and to report on the
progress being made at the site. EPA held additional public
availability sessions in June and November 1992, during the RI,
when the results from field investigations of Vicinity and
Satellite Properties were distributed to the respective property
owners, so that each individual property owner would have an
opportunity to discuss the findings with EPA.
-------
For the second operable unit (OU2), the subject of this document,
a second RI/FS report was released to the public in May 1995. A
Proposed Plan identifying EPA's preferred remedial alternative
was released on May 22, 1995. These documents were made
available to the public at the information repositories at the
Orange Public Library, located on Main Street in Orange, New
Jersey, and at the West Orange Public Library located on Mount
Pleasant Avenue in West Orange, New Jersey. in addition, the
Proposed Plan was mailed to property owners of affected
properties, and a "Superfund Update" for the site was mailed to
certain property owners and residents in the three study areas.
A copy of the administrative record file is located at the Orange
Public Library and in the EPA Superfund Records Center in Region
II, 290 Broadway, New York, New York. The notice of availability
of the Proposed Plan and administrative record was published in
The Star-Ledger (Essex County Edition) on May 22, 1995 and in The
Orange Transcript on May 25, 1995. The public comment period
relating to these documents was held from May 22, 1995 to June
21, 1995.
On June 1, 1995, EPA held a public meeting at the Orange City
Hal] Council Chambers, to present the findings of the RI/FS and
the Proposed Plan, and to respond to questions and comments from
area residents and other attendees. Responses to the comments
received during the public comment period are included in the
Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this ROD.
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
OU2 of the U.S. Radium Corporation site, chosen in accordance
with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act, and, to the extent practicable, the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP). The selection of the remedy for this site is based on the
administrative record.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
As described above, the first operable unit (OU1) included all
the residential properties in the Satellite and Vicinity
Properties study areas where radium-contaminated material was
detected. OU1 also included all but four of the nonresidential
properties in the Vicinity and Satellite Properties study areas.
The second operable unit (OU2) includes all properties within the
High and Alden Streets study area, including the former
processing plant and several adjacent properties. OU2 also
includes the four nonresidential, nonadjacent properties not
addressed in OU1. Two of these four nonadjacent OU2 properties
appear to have been watch dial painting facilities; a third was a
U.S. Radium-operated laboratory. The fourth property appears to
have been an experimental thorium handling operation.
-------
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The OU2 RI/FS report presents the results of field investigations
conducted at the High and Alden Streets Properties study area and
the four nonresidential, nonadjacent properties that are included
in OU2. The OU2 RI/FS report also discusses investigations of
Wigwam Brook and ground water; however, the results of EPA's
ground water investigation are inconclusive, and further
evaluation will be undertaken.
Radionuclides, primarily of the uranium decay chain, are the
principal contaminants of concern resulting from releases at the
U.S. Radium site. These nuclides include isotopes of radium,
thorium, uranium, lead and others. Radium-contaminated material
resulting from radium processing and utilization at the High and
Alden Streets Properties was apparently discarded on various
Vicinity and Satellite Properties. Hence, the primary
radionuclide of concern is radium-226. As a result of the radio-
active decay of radium-226 in the soil, elevated indoor concen-
trations of radon gas and radon decay products are exhibited in
most of the buildings associated with OU2. All OU2 properties
exhibit elevated levels of indoor and/or outdoor gamma radiation.
Table 1 summarizes the common units of measure for radionuclides
that are discussed below. The concentration of radium-226
measured at the properties investigated ranges from "background"
levels of approximately 1 picoCurie per gram (pCi/g) of soil up
to several thousand pCi/g.
As stated above, radium-226 radioactively decays into radon gas.
Because radium is found naturally in most soils, radon gas is
typically found in most buildings, and, in fact, radon gas was
detected at each of the properties where radon tests were
performed. Typical indoor radon gas levels, measuring about 1
picoCurie per liter (pCi/1) of air, were detected at unaffected
properties. Levels in excess of 4 pCi/1 are considered elevated,
and some affected properties had radon gas values as high as 20
pCi/1. The background radon-222 level of 1 pCi/1 within the
study areas corresponds to approximately 0.005 Working Level
(WL), whereas 20 pCi/1 of radon-222 corresponds to approximately
0.1 WL. Additionally, both indoor and outdoor gamma radiation
levels, reported in units of microRoentgens per hour (juR/hr) ,
have been measured at many of the study area properties.
Background gamma radiation is approximately 8.3 juR/hr within the
study areas.
Soil and Construction Material Investigations
Properties included in OU2 were surveyed for radioactive
materials to define the limits of contamination. Radiological
investigations included the collection of radon gas samples from
inside buildings, and interior/exterior surveying of each
-------
property to identify areas of elevated gamma radiation. Wherever
elevated gamma radiation readings were detected, additional
samples were collected to characterize the extent of contaminants
present.
Because of the long and varied history of industrial use at the
High and Alden Streets Properties study area, additional field
investigations were performed to augment the studies described
above. Surface and subsurface soil samples were collected and
analyzed for selected radionuclides and nonradiological, chemical
analyses for metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-
volatile organic compounds, pesticides and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs).
The following is a summary of the RI findings.
High and Alden Streets Properties
• Soil contaminated with radium and other radionuclides
is found on a substantial portion of the High and Alden
Streets Properties study area. Radiological
contamination is present in some locations to a depth
of 15 feet. An estimated 18,000 cubic yards of soil
have elevated radium concentrations. In addition,
approximately 110 cubic yards of structural material
are similarly contaminated.
Gamma radiation exposure rates associated with
contaminated soils range from background (8.3 /iR/hr) to
700 /uR/hr. All buildings on the High and Alden Streets
Properties contain elevated levels of radon gas, with
levels ranging from 12.7 pCi/1 to 110 pCi/1. Elevated
concentrations of both fixed and removable building
surface contamination are detected in some of the older
on-site structures.
Soil samples collected and analyzed for chemical (non-
radiological) contaminants indicate the presence of low
levels of metals and semi-volatiles in soils at the
High and Alden Streets Properties. Chemical soil
contamination is sporadic.
Four Nonadjacent OU2 Properties
Studies of the four nonadjacent OU2 properties
indicated the presence of elevated levels of
radiological contamination. Three properties contain
elevated levels of radium, found in both soil and
structural materials, resulting in elevated gamma
radiation levels. Elevated radon levels, along with
elevated levels of both fixed and removable building
surface contamination, were detected at one property.
-------
The fourth property is the only investigated property
contaminated with thorium-232. Approximately 400 cubic
yards of contaminated soil and 40 cubic yards of
contaminated structural material were found at these
four properties.
Wigwam Brook and Ground Water Investigations
Surface water and stream sediments were collected from Wigwam
Brook and analyzed for radiological and chemical contaminants.
Four ground water monitoring wells were installed at the High and
Alden Streets Properties study area. In addition to these four
wells, EPA also sampled four preexisting wells (one municipal
supply well, one commercial production well and two monitoring
wells) for radionuclides and chemical contaminants. The findings
of the RI are summarized below.
No elevated radiological contamination was found in
surface water or sediment samples from Wigwam Brook..
No chemical contamination attributable to the site was
found in surface water or sediment samples from Wigwam
Brook.
Elevated uranium concentrations were detected in EPA's
monitoring wells IS and 3, and an elevated radium
concentration was detected in EPA monitoring well IS.
No other ground water sampling locations had elevated
levels of radionuclides.
VOCs, including tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloro-
ethylene (TCE) and 1,2-dichloroethylene (1,2-DCE), were
detected in EPA monitoring wells above federal or state
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for drinking water.
VOCs were also detected in the municipal and non-
potable, private wells sampled over an area covering
about one square mile around the site. No definite
pattern of VOC contamination was evident, nor could a
defined plume of ground water contamination be
identified. (Municipal drinking water supply wells in
the area have treatment systems to remove VOCs; there
are no known private drinking water wells located near
the site.) It is unclear at this time whether any
portion of the VOC contamination found is related to
the site.
Because EPA monitoring wells are contaminated with site-related
as well as potentially unrelated contaminants, and information is
currently not available to determine the extent to which site-
related contaminants may be migrating into the ground water, EPA
will further evaluate the nature and extent of ground water
8
-------
contamination. Not withstanding this further evaluation, site
activities do not appear to be adversely impacting Wigwam Brook.
In addition, local municipal water supply wells are not
contaminated with radionuclides.
The study areas are situated in well-established urban or
suburban communities, where extensive development and reworking
of soils has taken place. Thus, no wetlands remain at or in
close proximity to the study areas.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
During the OU2 RI/FS, EPA performed a baseline risk assessment of
exposure to contaminants associated with the U.S. Radium
Corporation site. This baseline risk assessment estimates the
human health risk which could result from the contamination at
the site if no remedial action were taken.
To evaluate human health risks, a four-step process is used for
assessing site-related risks for a reasonable maximum exposure
scenario. These steps are: Hazard Identification - identified
the contaminants of concern at the site based on several factors
such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and concentration;
Exposure Assessment - estimated the magnitude of actual and/or
potential human exposures, the frequency and duration of these
exposures, and the pathways (e.g., ingesting contaminated soil)
by which humans are potentially exposed; Toxicity Assessment -
determined the types of adverse health effects associated with
exposures to site contaminants, and the relationship between
magnitude of exposure (dose) and severity of adverse effects
(response); and Risk Characterization - summarized and combined
outputs of the exposure and toxicity assessments to provide a
quantitative (e.g., one-in-a-million excess cancer risk)
assessment of site-related risks.
For risk assessment purposes, individual contaminants are
typically separated into two categories of health hazard
depending on whether they exhibit carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic
effects. Radionuclides (e.g., radium, thorium, radon, radon
decay products) are known carcinogens. Nonradiological,
"chemical" contaminants (e.g., polyaromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs],
barium, vanadium, cadmium and lead) may exhibit both carcinogenic
and noncarcinogenic health effects.
Current federal guidelines for acceptable exposures are an
individual lifetime excess carcinogenic risk in the range of 10^
to 10"6, representing an increased probability of one in ten
thousand to one in one million that an individual could develop
cancer resulting from exposure to site-related contaminants, and
a maximum Hazard Index (which reflects noncarcinogenic effects
for a human receptor) equal to 1.0. (A Hazard Index greater than
1.0 indicates a potential for noncarcinogenic health effects.)
-------
It must be noted that the risk posed by naturally occurring
background radiation appears high when compared to the potential
risk posed by nonradiological carcinogens. During the RI,
natural background radiation was measured and used to estimate
the risk of cancer to the general public. The risk of cancer to
the public was estimated to be 2 x 10'3, representing a
probability of two in one thousand that an individual could
develop cancer resulting from exposure to natural background
radiation. The excess risk to individuals at contaminated
properties has been evaluated with respect to this background
risk.
To evaluate human health risk, several exposure pathways were
selected for detailed evaluation under current land-use
conditions. In addition, potential future land-use conditions
were considered for the High and Alden Streets Properties.
All of the current land-use conditions involved the potential
exposure of workers or occupants of commercial properties, and
trespassers on unused properties. Because most of the properties
surrounding the High and Alden Streets Properties are
residential, conversion from commercial to residential use was
considered to be a reasonable future scenario for the High and
Alden Streets Properties, resulting in potential exposures to
residents. The exposure pathways were similar for current and
future land-use situations: inhalation of radon decay products;
exposure to external gamma radiation emanating from radium-
contaminated material; ingestion of radionuclides in soil; and
inhalation of radium-contaminated particulates. In addition, a
future residential land-use condition resulted in several added
exposure pathways for on-site residents: ingestion of
radionuclides, cadmium and vanadium, either from inadvertent
ingestion of soil or in locally grown produce.
In all current and future land-use situations, inhalation
exposure to radon decay products is consistently the major
contributor to the total cancer risk that may be incurred by
individuals at contaminated properties. Exposure to gamma
radiation also provides a significant component of the overall
radiogenic cancer risk. Ingestion of radionuclides is several
orders of magnitude lower in risk than that of the inhalation and
gamma exposure pathways. Inhalation exposure to particulate
radium is an insignificant contributor to the total risk.
For current land-use conditions at the four nonadjacent OU2
properties, the estimated excess lifetime cancer risk ranged up
to 5 x 10"3 (five in one thousand) . For the High and Alden
Streets Properties, the estimated excess lifetime risks under
current and future land-use scenarios were 1 x 10"2 (one in one
hundred) and 2 x 10'1 (two in ten) , respectively.
10
-------
Tables 2 through 10 provide a summary of the excess lifetime
cancer risk estimates associated with exposure to radionuclides
for unremediated OU2 properties.
Exposure to chemical (nonradiological) contaminants under future
land-use conditions contributed a marginally elevated Hazard
Index and cancer risk at the High and Alden Streets Properties
study area. Table 11 summarizes the risks posed by chemical
contaminants under various current and future use scenarios. The
major contributors to the risk are cadmium and vanadium; however,
these risks are trivial compared to those resulting from
radionuclide exposure.
Unusually high concentrations of naturally occurring radon have
not been associated with the communities where OU2 properties are
located. Exposure to elevated levels of gamma radiation, and the
pathways for the inhalation and ingestion of radium, pose risks
not typically encountered in areas of naturally occurring radon.
The close proximity of the radium-contaminated soil to the ground
surface or radiological contamination in building construction
material at contaminated properties is the main reason for these
additional risks.
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this
evaluation, as in all such assessments, are subject to a wide
variety of uncertainties. In general, the main sources of
uncertainty include:
environmental sampling and analysis;
environmental parameter measurement;
fate and transport modeling;
exposure parameter estimation; and
toxicological data.
Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the
potentially uneven distribution of contaminants in the media
sampled. Consequently, there is significant uncertainty as to
the actual levels present. Environmental sample-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 radionuclides of concern, the period of time over which such
exposure would occur, and in the models used to estimate the
concentrations of the contaminants of concern at the point of
exposure.
Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both
from animals to humans and from high to low doses of exposure, as
well as from the difficulties in assessing the toxicity of a
11
-------
mixture of contaminants. 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 that may be exposed to radionuclides, and is highly
unlikely to underestimate actual risks related exposure.
More specific information concerning public health risks,
including a quantitative evaluation of the degree of risk
associated with various exposure pathways, is presented in the
Risk Assessment Report.
An evaluation of ecological risk was not conducted as part of
OU2. It was determined that, because of the urban setting
associated with the contaminated areas, the likelihood of contact
of contaminants with ecological receptors was minimal. For
example, Wigwam Brook serves primarily as a stormwater drainage
culvert in this area. The one possible exception would be
receptors down stream of Wigwam Brook; however, because of the
length of time since the original deposition of material and the
lack of any current releases from the High and Alden Streets
Properties study area into the brook, the likelihood of exposure
is considered minimal.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
U.S. Radium Corporation site, if not addressed by implementing
the response action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent
and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
The following remedial action objectives have been established
for this operable unit of the U.S. Radium Corporation site:
Reduce exposure to radon gas levels in excess of 4
pCi/1 and radon decay products in excess of 0.02 WL.
Reduce exposure to gamma radiation emitted from radium-
contaminated material resulting from site sources with
radium concentrations in excess of 5 pCi/g; employing
As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) principles.
Prevent ingestion of and general contact with radium-
contaminated material resulting from site sources with
radium concentrations in excess of 5 pCi/g, employing
ALARA principles.
These remedial action objectives are similar to those selected
for the Montclair/West Orange and Glen Ridge Radium sites (MWG
sites) and for OU1 of this site and would, at minimum, achieve
the cleanup criteria in 40 CFR 192, the federal regulations
12
-------
governing the cleanup of uranium mill tailings from inactive
uranium processing sites. EPA has determined that the 5 pCi/g
standard found in 40 CFR 192 is relevant and appropriate for
cleanup at the U.S. Radium site, when combined with ALARA
principles.
EPA's implementation of the remedy at the MWG sites has revealed
some of the limitations of 40 CFR 192: a strict implementation
of the regulation would not result in a cleanup that would
satisfy the more protective requirements of CERCLA. Therefore,
EPA has relied upon ALARA principles at the MWG sites during
implementation of the response action. Applying ALARA principles
means taking additional measures during remedial action, beyond
those required to meet a specified cleanup goal, to assure
protectiveness. In achieving the remedial action objectives for
OU2, EPA will rely on the ALARA principles used at the MWG sites
during implementation of the response action. Applying the 5
pCi/g standard with ALARA principles at the MWG sites has
resulted in exposure levels that are lower than the levels that
would result from using the 5 pCi/g standard alone. An ALARA
approach is being used at the MWG sites because of the long-lived
nature of radionuclides, the difficulty in eliminating routes of
exposure, limitations of the analytical equipment to detect
radionuclides, and site-specific factors which may make it
necessary to remove material at levels below 5 pCi/g to achieve
adequate public health protection.
Certain structures and above-ground debris at the affected
properties are contaminated with radium. The selected remedy is
expected to satisfy Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidelines for
surface contamination or, as appropriate, the remedial action
objectives employing ALARA principles to help ensure
protectiveness.
EPA's experience at the MWG sites has shown that the remedial
action objectives noted above can be achieved and, by
incorporating ALARA principles, generally result in no elevated
radon or gamma radiation levels at the surface. Therefore, by
using similar remedial action objectives, the U.S. Radium site
would pose no unacceptable risk for residential uses after
cleanup, and would result in a cleanup that is protective under
CERCLA.
Vanadium and cadmium at levels that exceed background for those
metals were detected in some samples collected at the High and
Alden Streets Properties study area; the levels pose some
marginal risk in several future-use scenarios. Risk-based
remediation goals of 517 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) for
vanadium and 10 mg/kg for cadmium were derived in the RI report.
The areas of radionuclide-soil contamination appear to be
contiguous with the areas of vanadium/cadmium contamination. The
remedial alternatives considered below take into account the
13
-------
metals contamination, in that the limited options available for
mitigating the radium-contaminated soil would also adequately
address the metals contamination at the levels detected.
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA requires that each selected site remedy be protective of
human health and the environment, be cost effective, and utilize
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or
resource recovery technologies to the maximum 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 the hazardous substances.
Only a limited number of options are available for the
remediation of radioactively contaminated sites. No treatment
technologies are known that will eliminate radioactivity. (The
total amount of radioactivity cannot be altered or destroyed, as
is often possible with chemical contaminants.) Thus, the
remedial alternatives described below focus on methods of
satisfying the remedial action objectives by limiting contact
with radium-contaminated material.
The FS evaluated in detail four alternatives for addressing the
contamination associated with the U.S. Radium Corporation site.
The estimated capital cost, operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs, and net present worth cost of each alternative discussed
below are provided for comparison. The time to implement a
remedial alternative reflects only the time required to construct
or implement the remedy and does not include the time required to
design the remedy, negotiate with the responsible parties,
procure contracts for design and construction, or conduct O&M at
the site. A brief description of each alternative follows.
Alternative 1: No Action
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 0
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 0
Estimated Present Worth: $ 0
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: none
A No Action alternative is evaluated for every Superfund site to
establish a baseline for comparison with remedial alternatives.
Under this alternative, no further action would be taken to
reduce exposure to radioactive materials at these properties.
The temporary radon mitigation system already installed at one
OU2 property during the 1991 removal action would remain in
place, but there would be no provision for operation and
maintenance. No additional measures would be taken to reduce
exposures at properties that are not presently being addressed.
Even with a long projected life for the radon mitigation system,
it is assumed that it would eventually fail and that indoor
14
-------
concentrations of radon and radon decay products would return to
the pre-mitigation conditions.
Because hazardous substances would remain at the OU2 prbperties
above acceptable levels, five-year reviews would be required.
Alternative 2: Engineering and Institutional Controls
Estimated Capital Cost: $12,716,000
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 107,000
Estimated Present Worth: $13,740,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 3 years
This alternative involves the implementation of one or more of
the following engineering controls, as determined to be
necessary, in areas where contamination has been identified and
measures have yet to be taken:
Installation of systems to reduce indoor concentrations
of radon and radon decay products;
. • Installation of indoor gamma radiation shielding;
Installation of outdoor gamma radiation shielding where
necessary; and
. In some cases, installation of fencing to restrict
property access.
During implementation of this action, temporary relocation of
some businesses may be required. Institutional controls (e.g.,
municipal or health ordinances, land-use restrictions) would also
be necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the engineering
controls.
O&M would also be necessary to assure the continued
protectiveness of the engineering controls. Because radium,
which persists for thousands of years, would not be removed from
the properties, the need for O&M would continue for many years;
however, for cost-estimating purposes, O&M costs for maintaining
the radon mitigation systems and gamma radiation shielding have
been assumed for a period of 30 years. Because hazardous
substances would remain at the OU2 properties above acceptable
levels, five-year reviews of the remedy would be required. This
alternative would take approximately three years to implement.
15
-------
Alternative 3: On-site containment
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 10,771,000
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 128,000
Estimated Present Worth: $ 11,990,'000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 2 years
Under this alternative, radium-contaminated buildings at the High
and Alden Streets Properties and one nonadjacent OU2 property
would be dismantled. The dismantled building debris would be
sent to an appropriate off-site disposal facility. Soil from the
four nonadjacent OU2 properties would be excavated and replaced
with clean fill. The excavated material from these four
properties would be brought to the High and Alden Streets
Properties study area for long-term containment. A containment
facility would be constructed by installing a cap and slurry wall
around the radium-contaminated soil at the High and Alden Streets
Properties study area.
During implementation of this action, temporary or permanent
relocation of businesses would be required at some properties.
Chemical (nonradiological) soil contamination found at the High
and Alden Streets Properties would also be contained under the
cap. Engineering and institutional controls similar to those
described under Alternative 2 would be required for the High and
Alden Streets Properties; however, the four nonadjacent OU2
properties would be available for unrestricted use. Because
hazardous substances would remain at the High and Alden Streets
Properties study area, five-year reviews of .the remedy would be
required to assure the continued effectiveness of the remedy.
This alternative would take approximately two years to implement.
Alternative 4: Excavation and Off-site Disposal
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 22,030,000
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 0
Estimated Present Worth: $ 22,030,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 2 years
Under this alternative, radium-contaminated material would be
excavated or otherwise removed from contaminated properties, and
replaced with clean fill or otherwise restored. It is estimated
that approximately 18,400 cubic yards of soil and 150 cubic yards
of construction material are contaminated with radionuclides.
Contaminated material would be transported for final disposal at
an appropriate, off-site facility.
Based on experience at this site and the MWG sites, material
contaminated above background levels would not remain within the
first two feet of a remediated property. In addition, based on
data available for the site and EPA's experience, residually
16
-------
contaminated material remaining on remediated properties would
not be greater than two feet in thickness.
During implementation of this action, relocation of businesses
would be required at some properties. In addition, demolition of
certain OU2 property buildings may be required because of the
unique contaminant distributions at those properties. Excavation
and off-site disposal of radium-contaminated soil from the High
and Alden Streets Properties would also remove nonradiological,
chemical contamination found in the soil. Because this
alternative would not result in elevated levels of radionuclides
remaining on any property, a five-year review of the
effectiveness of the remedy would not be required. This
alternative would take approximately two years to implement.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with the NCP, a detailed analysis of each remedial
alternative was performed with respect to each of the nine
evaluation criteria. This section discusses and compares the
performance of the remedial alternatives under consideration
anainst these criteria. These criteria were developed to address
the requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA to ensure that all
important considerations are factored into remedy selection
decisions. All selected remedies must at least satisfy the
Threshold Criteria. The selected remedy should provide the best
trade-offs among the Primary Balancing Criteria. The Modifying
Criteria are evaluated following the public comment period.
Threshold Criteria
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment
considers whether or not a remedial alternative provides
adequate protection and describes how risks posed through
each exposure pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled
through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional
controls.
2. Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedial
alternative meets all of the applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) of federal and state
environmental statutes and requirements, or provides grounds
for invoking a waiver.
Primary Balancing Criteria
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability
of a remedial alternative to maintain reliable protection of
human health and the environment over time, once cleanup
goals have been met. It also addresses the magnitude and
effectiveness of the measures that may be required to manage
17
-------
the risk posed by treatment residuals and/or untreated
wastes.
4. Reduction of toxicitv. mobility, or volume through-treatment
addresses the statutory preference for selecting remedial
actions that employ treatment technologies that permanently
and significantly reduce toxicity, mobility or volume of
hazardous substances as a principal element.
5. Short-term effectiveness considers the period of time needed
to achieve protection and any adverse impacts on human
health and the environment that may be posed during the
construction and implementation period, until cleanup goals
are achieved.
6. Implementability refers to the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedial alternative, including the avail-
ability of materials and services needed to implement the
alternative.
7. Cost includes the estimated capital and O&M costs, and the
present-worth costs.
Modifying Criteria
8. State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of
the RI/FS and the Proposed Plan, the State supports,
opposes, and/or has identified any reservations with the
preferred alternative.
9. Community acceptance refers to the public's general response
to the alternatives described in the Proposed Plan and the
RI/FS report. Responses to public comments are addressed in
the Responsiveness Summary section of this Record of
Decision.
comparisons
A comparative analysis of the remedial alternatives based upon
the evaluation criteria noted above follows.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 1 (No Action) is not protective of human health and
the environment because the risks associated with contaminated
OU2 properties would persist for the foreseeable future. Under
Alternative 1, radon and radon decay product levels would be
reduced in only the one building which currently has a mitigation
system. However, as the temporary mitigation system fails,
indoor concentrations of radon and radon decay products would
return to pre-mitigation conditions. Under Alternative 1, the
security fence currently in place around the abandoned portion of
18
-------
the former plant site would not be maintained. There would be no
reduction in gamma radiation exposure indoors or outdoors, and no
reduction in the threat of direct contact with radium-
contaminated material.
Alternatives 2 (Engineering and Institutional Controls) and 3
(On-site Containment) reduce the possibility of exposure to
contaminated material and, therefore, reduce human health risks
associated with the site. However, with either alternative, the
radium-contaminated material would remain on certain properties.
Alternative 4 (Excavation and Off-site Disposal) is fully
protective of human health and the environment because it removes
the contamination from the site. As a result, Alternative 4
allows unrestricted future use of contaminated properties.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
No requirements have been determined to be applicable to the
remediation of the OU2 properties. However, as discussed
earlier, portions of the federal regulations governing the
cleanup of uranium mill tailings from inactive uranium processing
sites, 40 CFR 192, have been determined to be relevant and
appropriate.
Health- or risk-based standards include an annual average
exposure guideline of no more than 4 pCi/1 of air for radon,
which corresponds to an approximate annual average exposure of
0.02 WL for radon decay products. Additionally, the standards
for the cleanup of radium-contaminated material require that the
concentration of radium-226, averaged over an area of 100 square
meters (120 square yards) of surface soil, be no greater than 5
pCi/g. For this site, the 5 pCi/g cleanup standard also applies
to subsurface soils.
Alternative 1 does not satisfy any of the human health standards.
Alternatives 2 and 3 satisfy human health standards by reducing
exposures to radiation in excess of natural background levels;
however, continued O&M is required to assure continued attainment
of these standards. Alternative 4 satisfies human health
standards by removing the source of exposures to radiation in
excess of natural background levels. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4
would satisfy the threshold requirements of overall protection of
human health and the environment with regard to chemical
(nonradiological) contaminants.
Because Alternative 1, No Action, does not meet the threshold
requirements of overall protection of human health and the
environment or compliance with ARARs, it will not be considered
further in the evaluation of alternatives.
19
-------
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 2 provides little long-term effectiveness or
permanence, since it relies on the use of engineering and
institutional controls at radium-contaminated properties.
Alternative 3 provides a slightly more effective long-term
solution; however, it would be difficult to maintain a facility
containing radioactive wastes with long half-lives (about 1,622
years for Radium-226) in a densely populated area. Alternative 3
would allow for unrestricted future use of the four nonadjacent
OU2 properties, but not the High and Alden Streets Properties.
Alternative 4 is fully effective in the community for the long
term, would allow for unrestricted use of all the OU2 properties,
and is considered a final remedial solution.
Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume through Treatment
As radioactivity is an intrinsic property of the nuclides in the
contaminated material, its toxicity cannot be altered by
treatment. Mobility and/or volume may be addressed by treatment,
but as toxicity is not altered, such treatment does not provide a
sufficient reduction in health risk or environmental threat. No
treatment technology is currently available that can effectively
reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of the radioactive
contamination to the site-specific cleanup criteria specified
given the soil matrix found at the OU2 properties. Therefore,
none of the remedial alternatives that were considered satisfy
this evaluation factor. Although none of the alternatives
considered use treatment as a principal element, Alternatives 3
and 4 provide some reduction in the mobility of radiologically
contaminated material, through placement in a secure containment
facility.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 provide effective short-term protection,
and become effective as they are implemented at individual
properties. Any adverse short-term impacts during implementation
(such as the creation of dust) can be controlled through the use
of measures such as dust suppression techniques.
Alternative 2 involves less intrusive activities and poses less
of a threat to workers and the surrounding community during
implementation than Alternatives 3 or 4. Alternatives 3 and 4
require a comparable period of time to implement, two years.
However, Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 involve intrusive activities,
including, in some cases, temporary or permanent relocation of
businesses. Alternatives 3 and 4 have a greater potential
adverse impact in the short term because of the removal of
radium-contaminated material, including the excavation of soil.
Engineering controls would be required to minimize the impacts of
these alternatives.
20
-------
Implementability
The indoor remedial activities associated with Alternative 2 are
generally straightforward to implement and have been successfully
implemented at other sites. Extensive outdoor gamma radiation
shielding techniques have not been attempted or fully
demonstrated and, therefore, may create some difficulties.
Property owners along with state, county and municipal
authorities would need to be involved in the process of
implementing the necessary institutional controls for
Alternatives 2 and 3.
Alternatives 3 and 4 involve the use of standard construction
practices. Implementation would be expected to be
straightforward and, in the case of Alternative 4, has been
successfully performed at the Montclair/West Orange and Glen
Ridge Radium sites.
The continued availability of an off-site disposal facility is
required for implementation of Alternative 4.
Cost
Alternative 2 includes construction costs of $12.7 million to
implement remedial measures at OU2 properties, and an annual O&M
cost of $107,000 for all properties for an assumed period of 30
years. This results in an estimated present worth cost of $13.7
million for the alternative. Alternative 3 has an estimated
present worth cost of $12 million, with $128,000 in annual O&M
costs assumed for a period of 30 years. Alternative 4 involves
construction costs of $22 million, but no O&M costs.
State Acceptance
The State of New Jersey concurs with the remedial actions called
for by the selected remedy.
Community Acceptance
The community response to EPA's Proposed Plan was supportive.
There is a consensus of support for the proposal in that it calls
for full remediation of the properties where radium-contaminated
material is discovered.
Alternative 4 has received consistent community support, as it is
a final remedy which complies with ARARs. Even though short-term
disruption to the community during implementation of Alternative
4 would be the highest of the active remedial alternatives, the
public fully supports this alternative.
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 have received little or no community
support.
21
-------
SELECTED REMEDY
The following describes the remedial action plan which EPA is
selecting to implement at the OU2 properties. EPA selects
Alternative 4, as presented in the Proposed Plan.
The selected remedial action will achieve the remedial action
objectives at affected OU2 properties, (i.e., reduce exposure to
gamma radiation resulting from material with radium
concentrations in excess of 5 pCi/g, reduce exposure to radon
decay products in excess of 0.02 WL, and prevent ingestion of and
general contact with material with radium concentrations in
excess of 5 pCi/g). Radium-contaminated soil found on affected
properties in excess of 5 pCi/g will be excavated consistent with
40 CFR 192, Subpart B. The remedy will attain a risk level
similar to risk levels associated with exposure to natural
background radiation. Based on sampling efforts to date, EPA
estimates that approximately 18,400 cubic yards of contaminated
soil will be excavated from these properties. Other nonsoil
contamination, estimated to total approximately 150 cubic yards,
will also be removed. All of the radium-contaminated material
will be disposed of at a licenser', off-sjte facility. Areas that
have been excavated will be restored with clean fill.
Concentrations of vanadium and cadmium are present at this site
in excess of the risk-based remediation goals for those metals
(517 mg/kg for vanadium, 10 mg/kg for cadmium). However, the
areas where nonradiological contaminants have been found
generally coincide with areas of radionuclide contamination.
Therefore, the selected remedy will provide for excavation and
disposal of these contaminants as well.
During implementation of this action, some businesses may need to
relocate.
Though it is unlikely, should circumstances arise which prevent
the continuation of off-site disposal (e.g., loss of the disposal
facility), excavation activities will cease. At that point, the
OU2 properties will receive appropriate engineering controls
designed to protect human health and the environment to the
maximum extent practicable.
The selected remedy will be a final remedy for the OU2 properties
addressed in the second operable unit. As stated earlier,
because elevated levels of radon decay products could be present
after completion of the remedy as a result of naturally occurring
sources, it may be necessary for some property owners to maintain
radon mitigation systems after implementation of the action.
A Stage 2 Cultural Resources Survey is currently being performed
as part of the second operable unit studies. It has been
determined that mitigation actions under the National Historic
22
-------
Preservation Act (NHPA) may be necessary as a result of the
remedial action selected here. The nature and extent of those
mitigation activities will be assessed as part of the Cultural
Resources Survey. The selected remedy will be performed in
compliance with the requirements of the NHPA.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Superfund remedy selection is based on CERCLA and the regulations
contained in the NCP. Under its legal authorities, EPA's primary
responsibility in selecting remedies at Superfund sites is to
undertake actions that are protective of human health and the
environment. In addition, Section 121 of CERCLA establishes
several other statutory requirements and preferences. These
specify that, when complete, the selected remedial action for
this site must comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate
environmental standards established under federal and state
environmental laws unless a statutory waiver is justified. The
selected remedy also must be cost-effective and utilize permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
Finally, the statue includes a preference for remedies that
employ treatment that permanently and significantly reduce the
volume, toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous wastes, as their
principal element. The following sections discuss how the
selected remedy meets these statutory requirements for the second
operable unit of the U.S. Radium Corporation site.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
For the OU2 properties, this remedy fully protects human health
and the environment. It is estimated that .no radium-contaminated
soil above the cleanup standards will remain on the affected
properties. In addition, based on experience at this site and
the Montclair/West Orange and Glen Ridge Radium sites, material
contaminated above background levels would not remain within the
first two feet of a remediated property. In addition, based on
data available for the site and EPA's experience, residually
contaminated material remaining on remediated properties would
not be greater than two feet in thickness. The remedy will
attain a risk level similar to risk levels associated with
exposure to natural background radiation. Implementation of this
remedy will eliminate additional risks attributable to exposures
to indoor or outdoor gamma radiation, indoor radon gas or radon
decay products, inhalation and/or ingestion of contaminated soil,
and ingestion of contaminated vegetables grown in contaminated
soil.
This remedy will comply with the ARARs for exposure to indoor
gamma radiation and the inhalation of radon gas or radon decay
products, and attainment of soil cleanup standards.
23
-------
There are few short-term risks associated with the implementation
of this remedy. Where excavation occurs, dust suppression
measures can reduce the risk of inhalation of radium-contaminated
dust. In addition, no adverse cross-media impacts are expected
from the remedy.
Attainment of ARARs
As presented earlier, the primary ARARs for this site are
contained in 40 CFR 192, Subpart B. This regulation deals with
the cleanup of inactive uranium processing facilities. EPA has
determined that while these standards are not legally applicable,
they are relevant and appropriate to the situation at the U.S.
Radium Corporation site.
When implemented, the cleanup of the affected properties within
the study areas will comply with all public health and soil
cleanup ARARs.
Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedy is cost-effective because it provides the
highest degree of overall effectiveness relative to its cost.
The remedy provides for complete protection of public health and
the environment at the affected properties. It has been examined
closely to ensure that it is the least costly means of achieving
the required level of protection.
Utilization of Permanent solutions and Alternate Treatment or
Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
EPA and the State of New Jersey have determined that the selected
remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions
and currently available treatment technologies can be utilized in
a cost-effective manner for this phase of the remedial action at
the U.S. Radium Corporation site. Of those alternatives that are
protective of human health and the environment and comply with
ARARs, EPA and the State of New Jersey have determined that the
selected remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs in terms
of long-term effectiveness and permanence, short-term
effectiveness, implementability, and cost, and considering the
statutory preference for treatment as a principal element and
State and community acceptance.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The principal threat at the site is the generation of excess
concentrations of radon gas and radon decay products indoors,
which are subsequently inhaled by the occupants of structures on
OU2 properties. In addition, there are threats from exposure to
excess levels of indoor and/or outdoor gamma radiation, ingestion
and/or inhalation of radium-contaminated soil, and ingestion of
24
-------
vegetables grown in contaminated soil. Because there is no
treatment available that destroys the radioactive source of these
threats, the selected remedy does not satisfy the statutory
preference for treatment as the principal element. The remedy
does reduce the exposure to all excess indoor concentrations of
radon and radon decay products. It also provides for complete
remediation at the affected properties, thereby reducing the
exposure risk from all pathways.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative
presented in the Proposed Plan.
25
-------
VICINITY
PROPERTIES STUDY AREA
t* SuR/hr ISOPLETH)
STREET PROPERTIES
NOTE: SATELLITE PROPERTIES ARE CIRCLED
U.S. RADIUM SITE
ORAMQC. NEW JERSEY
MA1DX
PIRNIE
SITE LOCATION MAP
-------
U.S. RADIUM CORPORATION SITE
VteWty Properties Study Area
U&KAOUM
CORPORATION
FACUTY
Note: The Satellite Propertlee study ana IndudM dteerata propcrtle* located In tevard
communltlftt, and cannot be elmtarly represented.
FIGURE 2
-------
a:
m
o
GATE
GATE
r
•SECURITY
FENCE
VACANT
(G)
GATE !
, i
VACANT - 2 FLOORS
r
•TRANSFORMER
GATE:
(C)
(B)
GAS PUMP-
GATE
HIGH STREET
UNDERGROUND—
MALCOLM
RRNIE
EPA US RADIUM SITE
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
SITE PLAN SHOWING EXISTING BUILDINGS
• JkLCOlB •••« «C
FIGURE 3
-------
TABLE 1
RADIATION UNITS
US RADIUM SITE
Parameter
Quantity
Radionuclide
Concentration in
Soil or other
Solid Material
Radionuclide
Concentration in
Water
Radon gas cone.
Radon progeny
cone.
Exposure rate
Dose
Dose equivalent
Historical
Unit
Curie
picoCurie per
gram of Solid
picoCurie per
liter of Water
picoCurie per
liter of Air
Working Level
micro-Roentgen
per hour
Radiation
Absorbed
Dose
Radiation
Equivalent Man
Abbrev.
Ci
pCi/g
pCi/L
pCi/L
WL
uR/h
rad
rem
International
Unit
Becquerel
Becquerel per
kilogram
"
Becquerel per
cu. meter
Gray
Sievert
Abbrev.
Bq
Bq/kg
Bq/m3
Gy
Sv
-------
TABLE 2
HAZARD ASSESSMENT
U.S. RADIUM SITE
RADIONUCLIDE
Radium-226
Uranium-238
Thorium-230
Lcad-210
Thorium-232
Radon-222
MEDIUM
Soil;
Structural
Materials
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Air
RANGE OF
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
(pCi/g)
<1-3300
<1-220
<1-2300
Not Measured
<1-159
-------
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF COMPLETE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
U.S. RADIUM SITE
Potentially Exposed Exposure Route, Medina
Population and Exposure Point
Pathway Selected
for Evaluation?
Reason for Selection
or Exclusion
Residents;
Occupants1-1
External gamma radiation
emanating from soil
and/or structural
materials.
Yes
Contamination is in
occupied and potentially
occupied areas.
Residents; Inhalation of radon decay
Occupants' products.
Residents Inhalation of radioactive
particulates.
Occupants1 Inhalation of radioactive
particulates.
Residents Digestion of radionudides
in soil
Occupants1 Ingestion of radionudides
in soil
Residents Ingestion of radionudides
in locally grown produce.
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Major contributor to
radiation dose at some
occupied and potentially
occupied properties.
Contamination is in
potentially occupied areas.
Contamination is in
inaccessible areas.
Contamination is in
potentially occupied areas.
Contamination is in
inaccessible areas.
Produce is grown at several
Vicinity Properties and
may be grown in potentially
occupied areas.
'Commercial properties
Trespasser is also considered an occupant
-------
TABLE 4
EXPOSURE CONDITIONS - COMMERCIAL AND TRESPASSER SCENARIOS
US RADIUM SITE
PROPERTY
SATELLITE I
SATELLITE:
SATELLITE 3
VICINITY!
High and Alden Streets
Background
SCENARIO
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Current commercial
TWMI^^MV
—
ftpOMre Point Gamma
D&rli«tLr« P»m»^i.» It mtm
(ufUb\
8
12
80
10
22
44
89
8
Eiponrc Point Indoor
Radon Coneentr*tion
roCi/L) I
<1.7
<1.7
43
<1.7
11.0
24.4
18JS
1.7
-------
i TABLE 5
EXPOSURE CONDITIONS:
HIGH AND ALDEN STREETS PROPERTIES - FUTURE RESIDENTIAL SCENARIO
• US RADIUM SITE
•
EXPOSURE POINT
VALUES
SOBL(pCi/g):
Ra-226
Pb-210
U-234,238
Th-230
PRODUCE (pCi/g):
Ra-226
Pb-210
U-234, 238
Th-230
INHALATION:
Gaseous (pCi/L):
Rn-222
Paniculate (pCi/cujn):
Ra-226
Pb-210
U-234,238
Th-230
BACKGROUND
1
1
14
1
0.02
0.01
0.0036
0.0005
1.7
1E-04
1E-04
1.8E-04
1E-04
HIGH AND ALDEN
STREETS PROPERTIES
456
456
10
182
9.1
4.6
0.02
0.09
253
4.6E-02
4.6E-02
l.OE-03
1.8E-02
-------
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OP UPBTIMB GAMMA RADIATION DOSB AND RADON INTAKE
FOR COMMERCIAL AND TRBSPASSBR SCENARIOS
US RADIUM SITE
PATHWAY
BacfcgroMil
SATELLITE 1
SATBLUTB 2
PROPERTY
SATELLITE 3
VICINITY I
Ililk ud Aides Slfecit
C«t«al R«4a*«tepa4
EXTBRNALOAMMA
RADIATION DOSB(nMl)
0.35
aas
0.52
3.5
1.0
1.9
0023
RADON -222
INHALATION (pCi)
2.1E+M
K2.IB+06
<2.IB+08
5.4B+M
<2.IE+M
I.4E+09
4611 + 06
• Trcipauer wuke it tewd oo • OK yew cipowire period and m*y be co«pved to backgrouad valuei of 2.IB-03 rad eatcraal (••>•• dow aad 4.3E*05 pCi Rn-222 inukc vit inhaUtioo.
-------
TABLE?
LIFETIME RADIONUCUDE INTAKE FOR HIGH AND AJLDEN STREETS
PROPERTIES - FUTURE RESIDENTIAL SCENARIO
US RADIUM SITE
Exposure Pathway Background High and Alden
^ Street! Properties
INGESTION (pCi)
Ra-226
Sofl UE+03 5.7E+05
Produce 2.6E+04 1.2E+07
Pb-210
Soil UE+03
Produce 1.3E+04
U-234.238
Sofl 2JE+03 UE+04
produce 4.6E+03 2U5E+04
Th-230
Sofl 1.3E+03 2JE+05
Produce 6.4E+02 UE-t-05
INHALATION (pQ)
Rn-222 2.7E+08 4.0E+09
Ra-226 53 2.4E+Q3
Pb-210 53 14E+03
U-234,238 9J 5JE+01
Th-230 5J
-------
TABLE 8
SUMMARY OP BXCBSS UPBT1MB CANCER RISK ESTIMATE; - COMMERCIAL SCENARIOS
US RADIUM SITE
PATHWAY
EXTERNAL GAMMA
RADIATION
INHALATION
TOTAL RISK
TOTAL EXCESS
UFETIMB RISK •
~+—
2.26-04
I.6E-03
1.96-03
--
PROPERTY
SATBLUTB 1
2.2B-04
I.6E-03
I.9B-03
OB+00
SATBLUTB 2
3.26-04
I.6E-03
2.06-03
1.16-04
SATBLUTB 3
2.2E-03
4.2B-03
6.4E-03
4.5E-03
VICINITY 1
2.7E-04
I.6E-03
I.9B-03
5.4E-03
Ilillli ««d Aldca Slfccii
CMICB!
Coaacfciil
5.9E-04
I.IB-02
I.1B-02
9.3E-03
Cammtittt
1.2E-OJ
2.4K-02
25U-02
2.3E-02
Tout CIOCM lifclime riik - Toul Riik - Riik from uo«void»bte nMural bMk|rouad ckdialioo.
-------
TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF EXCESS ANNUAL RISK ESTIMATES - TRESPASSER SCENARIO
US RADIUM SITE
PATHWAY
EXTERNAL GAMMA
RADIATION
INHALATION
ANNUAL RISK
TOTAL EXCESS
ANNUAL RISK*
Background
1.3E-06
3.3E-06
4.6E-06
--
Treapaaaw
1.4E-03
3.0E-03
5.0E-Q5
4.6E-03
' Total ezceta annual riik - Annual Riik - Riik Cram unavoidable naionl background radiation.
-------
TABLE 10
SUMMARY OF EXCESS LIFETIME CANCER RISK ESTIMATES FOR
HIGH AND ALDEN STREETS PROPERTIES - FUTURE RESIDENTIAL SCENARIO
US RADIUM SITE
PATHWAY
EXTERNAL GAMMA
RADIATION
INGESTION
Soil
Produce
INHALATION
Radon
Paniculate
TOTAL RISK
TOTAL EXCESS
LIFETIME RISK •
BackfroMd
1.4E-M
1.1E-06
1.2E-05
2.1E-03
9.3E-07
12E-03
--
Resident
&3E-02
4.JE-04
3.3E-03
3. IE -02
4.9E-05
l.OE-01
9.8E-02
• Total excen lifetime risk * Total Riik - Risk from aaavokkMe natural background radiation.
-------
TABLE 11
SUMMARY OF HAZARD INDICES AND
U.S. RADIUM SITE
EXPOSURE POPULATION
AND PATHWAY
CURRENT SCENARIO
COMMERCIAL WORKER
Inadvertent ingestion of surface soils
Dermal contact with surface soils
Inhalation of volatilized chemicals from surface soils
Inhalation of paniculate matter
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:
TRESPASSER
Inadvertent ingestion of surface soils
Dermal contact with surface soils
Inhalation of volatilized chemicals from surface soils
Inhalation of paniculate matter
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:
FUTURE SCENARIO
RESIDENT ADULT
Inadvertent ingestion of soils
Dermal contact with soils
Inhalation of volatilized chemicals from soils
Inhalation of paniculate matter
Ingestion of homegrown produce
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:
RESIDENT CHILD
Inadvertent ingestion of soils
Dermal contact with soils
Inhalation of volatilized chemicals from soils
Inhalation of paniculate matter
Ingestion of homegrown produce
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:
COMMERCIAL WORKER
Inadvertent ingestion of soils
Dermal contact with soils
Inhalation of volatilized chemicals from soils
Inhalation of paniculate matter
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:
CANCER RISKS
HAZARD INDEX
5E-01
3E-01
N/A
1E-04
8E-01
6E-02
3E-02
N/A
2E-05
1E-01
6E-01
3E-01
3E-04
5E-04
9E-01
2E-HK)
5E-HX)
6E-01
IE-03
3E-03
2E+00
8E-HOO
4E-01
2E-01
6E-05
1E-04
6E-01
CANCER RISK
4E-05
N/A
4E-10
8E-09
4E-05
2E-07
N/A
2E-12
5E-11
2E-07
3E-05
N/A
5E-09
4E-09
3E-04
3E-04
5E-05
N/A
5E-09
4E-09
1E-04
2E-04
1E-05
N/A
9E-10
7E-10
1E-05
N/A - Not Applicable
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
FOR THE
U.S. RADIUM CORPORATION SITE
ESSEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
SECOND OPERABLE UNIT
I. INTRODUCTION
This Responsiveness Summary provides a summary of public comments
and concerns regarding the remedial investigation and feasibility
study (RI/FS) report and the Proposed Plan for the U.S. Radium
Corporation Superfund site. It also provides the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) responses to those
comments. EPA has selected a remedy for the second operable unit
(OU2) of the U.S. Radium Corporation site after reviewing and
considering all public comments received during the public
comment period. OU2 includes the High and Alden Streets
Properties study areas and four other commercial properties.
A previous Record of Decision (ROD), signed September 21, 1993,
selected a remedy for contaminated residential properties and the
remaining commercial properties that comprise the U.S. Radium
site. These properties are referred to as the first operable
unit (OU1).
EPA held a public comment period from May 22, 1995 through June
21, 1995 to provide interested parties with the opportunity to
comment on the OU2 RI/FS report and the Proposed Plan. In
addition, EPA held a public information meeting to discuss the
remedial alternatives described in the RI/FS report and to
present EPA's preferred remedy for cleaning up the site. The
meeting was held on June 1, 1995 at the Orange City Hall Council
Chambers located at 29 North Day Street, Orange, New Jersey.
In general, the community responded positively to EPA's Proposed
Plan. Residents recognized the importance of remediating the
contamination at the U.S. Radium Corporation site.
The next section of this Responsiveness Summary provides a
comprehensive summary of major questions, comments, concerns, and
responses/ by summarizing oral comments raised at the public
meeting, written comments submitted during the public comment
period, and EPA's responses.
-------
The last section of this Responsiveness Summary includes
appendices which document public participation in the remedy
selection process for this site. There are four appendices
attached to this Responsiveness Summary." They are as follows.
Appendix A contains the Proposed Plan that was
distributed to the public for review and comment.
Appendix B contains public notices which appeared in
The Orange Transcript and The Star-Ledger.
Appendix C contains the public meeting transcript.
Appendix D contains the index to the administrative
record for the site.
II. COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS. COMMENTS.
CONCERNS. AND RESPONSES
ORAL COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC MEETING
This section summarizes oral comments raised at the public
meeting and EPA's responses. Most of the individuals at the
public meeting were homeowners or residents of properties
included in OU1; thus, it is not surprising that most of the
comments were directed toward EPA's ongoing work to clean up
affected OU1 properties. What follows is a brief discussion of
the types of questions and concerns raised about OU1, followed by
a response to the questions directed at EPA's OU2 Proposed Plan.
First Operable Unit
Because of the complexity of the U.S. Radium site, with its many
affected properties located in several municipalities, a number
of questions were directed at trying to understand which
properties were included in OU1 and which in OU2. All the
residential properties have been included in OU1, along with most
of the commercial properties. OU2 contains only commercial
properties. The OU2 properties also have in common the fact that
the U.S. Radium Corporation appears to have directly operated
facilities on each, whereas none of the OU1 properties appear to
have been used directly by the company.
Other questions were directed at real estate issues, EPA's
cleanup schedule and general health concerns. Written responses
to these types of questions appear in the Responsiveness Summary
for the OU1 ROD, which is available at the Orange and West Orange
Public Libraries, or from EPA.
-------
Second Operable unit
Comment: One interested citizen asked about the extent of EPA's
community relations efforts since the start of EPA's RI/FS.
Response: Since the start of the RI/FS in 1990, EPA has tried to
provide as much information as possible to the community, and to
be responsive to community concerns about the site. Public
meetings were held in January 1991, May 1993 and June 1995. Ten
public availability sessions were also held, on various dates,
where property owners were provided an opportunity to talk
individually with EPA about their property or the project in
general. In addition, Superfund Updates providing project status
information were periodically distributed to hundreds of property
owners, residents and interested parties in the study area. Most
recently, the Proposed Plan and a Superfund Update were
distributed to interested parties. Notices of the availability
of these documents and of the public meeting were placed in The
Orange Transcript and The Star-Ledger. Contact was also made
with property owners during the property surveys. Over the past
four years, EPA has contacted over 350 property owners
individually to request access for property investigations.
These community relations efforts will continue throughout the
remedial design and remedial action.
Comment: One concerned citizen asked whether anyone could be
held liable for future health problems resulting from exposure to
site contaminants, and what those health problems might be.
Response: Several successor corporations to the U.S. Radium
Corporation have been identified as potentially responsible
parties for the site; however, determining whether any party
could be held liable for future health problems is beyond the
scope of EPA's authority.
Studies have shown that long-term exposure to even low levels of
radiation increases the incidence of cancer in a population.
However, it is important to recognize that risk estimates are
statistical probabilities of the likelihood of a given event
(e.g., an incidence of cancer resulting from exposure to site
contaminants) taking place within a population in the future.
The translation of these risk estimates to practical, real-world
circumstances is difficult, and depends substantially on what
individuals perceive as an acceptable risk for themselves and
their families.
The primary health threat posed by radium-contaminated material
from the U.S. Radium site is exposure to elevated levels of radon
gas and radon decay products. The dominant health concern posed
by the inhalation of radon decay products is an increased risk of
getting lung cancer. Gamma radiation emitted by the radium-
contaminated material is also a contributing factor.
-------
Comment: One interested citizen asked why EPA hadn't identified
the specific addresses for the four nonadjacent properties in its
description of OU2.
Response: Information about the four properties is available in
the administrative record for the site and, specifically, in the
RI/FS report. To provide property owners with some degree of
privacy, EPA tries to avoid publicly discussing specific property
addresses when possible.
WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
EPA received no written comments during the public comment
period.
-------
U.S. Radium Corporation Site
Responsiveness Summary
Second operable Unit
Appendix A: Proposed Plan dated May 22, 1995
-------
Superfund Proposed Plan-
EPA
Region 2-
U.S. Radium Corporation Site
Second Operable Unit
High And Alden Streets Properties
And Related Properties
Essex County, New Jersey
-May 22, 1995
PURPOSE OF PROPOSED PLAN
This Proposed Plan describes the remedial
alternatives considered for a discrete group of
properties associated with the U.S. Radium
Corporation Superfund site, and identifies the
preferred remedial alternative with the rationale for
this preference. The properties include (1) the
former radium processing facility at the corner of
High and Alden Streets and several adjacent
properties, and (2) four nonadjacent, nonresidential
properties. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) developed this Proposed Plan with
support from the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP). EPA is issuing
the Proposed Plan as part of its public participation
responsibilities under Section 117(a) of the Compre-
hensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (CERCLA),
and Section 300.430(f) of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.
EPA is simultaneously issuing a remedial
investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) report,
which describes the nature and extent of contam-
ination and the remedial alternatives summarized
here. The RI/FS report should be consulted for a
more detailed description of all the alternatives.
EPA has placed the RI/FS report at two information
repositories: the Orange Public Library, located at
348 East Main Street in Orange, New Jersey; and the
West Orange Public Library located at 46 Mount
Pleasant Avenue in West Orange, New Jersey.
Additional documentation regarding the proposed
remedy is available in the administrative record for
the site. Copies of the administrative record, as
assembled to date, are located at the Orange Public
Library and at EPA's offices at 290 Broadway, New
York, New York.
The remedy described in this Proposed Plan is the
preferred remedy for the site. Changes to the
preferred 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 remedial
action. Because EPA may select a remedy other
than the preferred remedy, EPA is soliciting public
comment on all of the alternatives considered in the
detailed analysis of the RI/FS. The final decision
regarding the selected remedy will be made after
EPA has taken into consideration all public
comments.
COMMUNITY ROLE IN SELECTION PROCESS
EPA and NJDEP rely on public input to ensure that
the remedy selected for each Superfund site is fully
understood by the public and that the agencies have
considered the concerns of the local community, as
well as to ensure that the selected remedy provides
an effective solution.
This Proposed Plan and the RI/FS report are being
made available to the public during the public
comment period. Written comments on the
Proposed Plan or the RI/FS report will be welcomed
through June 21, 1995, and, if received by that date,
will be considered in a Record of Decision (ROD)
which will formally document the selected remedy.
All written comments should be addressed to:
Mr. John Prince, Remedial Project Manager
New Jersey Superfund Branch I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region II
290 Broadway
New York, New York 10007-1866
The final remedy selected will be documented in a
ROD only after consideration of all comments on
-------
any of the remedial alternatives addressed in the
Proposed Plan and RI/FS report. A public meeting
has been scheduled for June 1, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. at
the Orange City Hall Council Chambers, located at
29 North Day Street in Orange, to present both the
findings of the RI/FS report and the Proposed Plan.
MARK YOUR CALENDAR:
May 22, 1995 through June 21,1995
Public Comment Period - written and oral
comments solicited on RI/FS report and this
Proposed Plan
June 1, 1995
Public meeting at the Orange City Hall
Council Chambers, 29 North Day Street, at
7:00 pm.
Copies of the RI/FS report, Proposed Plan, and
supporting documentation are available at the
following locations:
Orange Public Library
348 Main Street
West Orange Public Library
46 Mount Pleasant Avenue
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS
The U.S. Radium Corporation site comprises
radium-contaminated properties within three study
areas, located primarily in the City of Orange, Essex
County, New Jersey. EPA refers to the three study
areas as the "High and Alden Streets Properties", the
"Vicinity Properties" and the "Satellite Properties".
The three study areas are described below:
High and Alden Streets Properties
These properties are the location of the former
U.S. Radium Corporation radium-processing
facility, which operated from approximately
1915 to 1926, and several adjacent properties
contaminated as a result of activities at the
processing facility. The study area occupies
approximately two acres at the southwest corner
of High and Alden Streets in Orange. Wigwam
Brook runs in a concrete channel along the
south side of the study area.
Vicinity Properties
These are properties in the vicinity of the High
and Alden Streets Properties, some of which
contain radium-contaminated material. This
study area includes over 300 properties on
about 25 acres in Orange and West Orange.
Satellite Properties
These properties include noncontiguous
residential and commercial properties at which
radium-containing materials may have been
handled or disposed of, in addition to former
residences of employees of the U.S. Radium
Corporation. This group includes about 50
properties located mostly in Orange, with a few
properties in the municipalities of East Orange
and South Orange.
DESCRIPTION OF OPERABLE UNITS
As with many Superfund sites, the problems at the
U.S. Radium Corporation site are complex. As a
result, EPA has organized the site into separate
phases or operable units. This Proposed Plan
addresses the second operable unit (OU2) for this
site.
The first operable unit (OU1) included all the
residential properties in the Satellite and Vicinity
Properties study areas where radium-contaminated
material was detected. OU1 also included all but
four of the nonresidential properties in the Vicinity
and Satellite Properties study areas.
The second operable unit (OU2) includes the all of
the High and Alden Streets study area, including the
former processing plant and several adjacent
properties. OU2 also includes the four non-
residential, nonadjacent properties not addressed in
OU1. Two of these four nonadjacent OU2
properties appear to have been dial painting
facilities; a third was a U.S. Radium-operated
laboratory. The fourth property appears to have
been an experimental thorium handling operation.
-------
SITE BACKGROUND
The U.S Radium Corporation, formerly known as the
Radium Luminous Materials Corporation, operated
a facility at High and Alden Streets in Orange from
1915 through 1926. Its primary activity at this
location was the extraction and purification of
radium from carnotite ore. Each ton of ore
produced only 5 to 7 milligrams of radium; thus,
large volumes of ore were required. Large quantities
of process wastes, or "tailings", were generated,
containing radioactive elements at elevated levels.
The tailings were temporarily discarded on unused
areas of the facility and ultimately disposed of off the
site.
In addition to the production and sale of radium
itself, the U.S. Radium Corporation also
manufactured a radium-based luminous paint. At
one time, the company employed over 100 workers
to paint instruments and watch dials with this
luminous paint. Reports indicate that dial painting
took place at the High and Alden Streets Properties
and at several Satellite Properties.
U.S. Radium Corporation discontinued radium
processing operations in 1926, while continuing its
dial painting business. U.S. Radium subsequently
sold its properties at High and Alden Streets in the
1940s. No subsequent occupants of the properties
are known to have processed or used radium.
EPA and NJDEP began investigating former radium
processing facilities, including the High and Alden
Streets facility, in the early 1980s. The investigations
of U.S. Radium lead to the identification of several
large areas in the nearby communities of Montclair,
West Orange and Glen Ridge where radium-
contaminated soil had been deposited; the affected
properties in these areas comprise two other
Superfund sites, the Montclair/West Orange Radium
site and the Glen Ridge Radium site (MWG sites).
In 1982, the U.S. Radium site was proposed for
inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL) of
Superfund sites. The site was placed on the NPL in
September 1983.
In July 1983, EPA notified five companies and one
individual that they had been identified as potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) for the site. EPA
requested a response outlining the activities that the
PRPs would be willing to undertake. One PRP,
Safety Light Corporation, a corporate successor to
U.S. Radium, responded that it was willing to
perform response activities at the site.
In 1983, EPA and Safety Light Corporation
commenced the first of several unsuccessful efforts to
negotiate an agreement whereby Safety Light would
undertake response activities at the site, under EPA
supervision. The last of these efforts ended in
December 1988 when Safety Light declined to
perform any work, other than to replace the
inadequate security fence around the High and
Alden Streets Properties. Safety Light began the
fence construction in 1989; however, EPA completed
the work because of problems with health and safety
procedures. The PRPs have not agreed to perform
any additional work.
The chronology of EPA and NJDEP site
investigations and activities have been described in
two RI/FS reports, available at the information
repositories identified on page 2 of this Proposed
Plan, or from EPA. The information repositories
also include reports describing two removal actions
performed at site properties: the 1989 fence
replacement described above; and in 1991, the
installation of radon mitigation systems and gamma
shielding at four OU1 properties and a radon
mitigation system in one OU2 property.
For further information on the selected remedy for
the OU1 properties, please refer to a first Record of
Decision (ROD) for the site, signed on September
21, 1993, also available at the information
repositories or from EPA. The selected remedy for
the OU1 properties involves excavation and off-site
disposal of the radium-contaminated material.
Regarding the OU1 selected remedy, the remedial
design associated with the first group of OU1
properties is currently being prepared. It is
anticipated that remedial construction activities at
these properties will begin in 1995. Further
information on the OU1 remedy is available from
EPA.
For further background information about the site,
please refer to the documents mentioned here and
available at the information repositories.
-------
U.S. RADIUM CORPORATION SITE
Vicinity Properties Study Aiea
T/ie Satellite Properties study area includes discrete properties located in several
communities, and cannot be similarly represented.
-------
THE NATURE OF RADIONUCLIDES
A radionuclide is an element that spontaneously
changes, or "decays" into another element through
natural processes. Radionuclides are present in trace
amounts in all rocks and soils, and consist primarily
of elements of the uranium-238 and thorium-232
decay series. When radionuclides decay, they emit
energy in the form of radiation. The decaying
radionuclide is often called the "parent", and the
radionuclide that is produced is referred to as the
"decay product". A quantity of radioactive material
is measured by its rate of decay, expressed by the
unit Curie (Ci), which is equal to 2.22 x 10U (2.22
trillion) disintegrating atoms per minute. A more
convenient unit for expressing environmental
radioactivity is the picoCurie (pCi), which is equal to
1 x 10'u (one trillionth) Ci.
Radium-226 is a naturally occurring, radioactive,
metallic element formed from the decay of uranium.
Radium, in turn, decays, with the formation of radon
gas. Radon gas is colorless, odorless, radioactive and
inert; therefore, it can move easily through soil to
the ground surface or into houses. Within a matter
of days, the radon gas itself decays into a series of
radioactive decay products. While radon gas in the
outdoor air dissipates quickly, inside a house, the
concentration of radon decay products in the indoor
air can build up over time. Adverse health affects
have been shown to result from the exposure to the
energy released by these various decays, referred to
collectively as "ionizing radiation".
EPA has developed health guidelines for limiting
exposure to ionizing radiation from radium and other
sources. In order to further ensure protectiveness,
those health guidelines can be supplemented by
selecting response actions which reduce exposures
resulting from ionizing radiation to levels that are As
Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) taking
into consideration technical, economic and social
factors.
EPA recommends that indoor radon concentrations
should not exceed 4 picoCuries/liter of air (pCi/1).
In 40 CFR 192, "Standards for Cleanup of Land and
Buildings Contaminated with Residual Radioactive
Materials From Inactive Uranium Processing Sites",
EPA promulgated standards for limiting exposure to
radon decay products, gamma radiation, and radium.
While this regulation is not applicable to this site
because it is not an inactive uranium processing site,
EPA promulgated standards for, parts of 40 CFR 192
are considered relevant and appropriate. The
relevant portions include the limiting of exposure to:
(1) radon decay products to levels less than 0.02
Working Levels (WL) (exposure to 4 pCi/1 of air for
radon corresponds to an approximate annual average
exposure of 0.02 WL for radon decay products); (2)
gamma radiation to 20 micro-Roentgens/hour
(|iR/hr) above the background rate; and (3) radium
concentration to 5 picoCuries/gram (pCi/g) above
background averaged over 100 square meters (120
square yards) of surface soil. As noted in the initial
ROD for the site, the 40 CFR 192 standard of 15
pCi/g in sub-surface soil (below 15 centimeters) is
not considered relevant and appropriate for this site;
the 5 pCi/g standard is considered relevant and
appropriate for both surface and subsurface soil.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
has set guidelines for decontamination of building
surfaces and equipment prior to tlieir release for
unrestricted use from facilities that process
radioactive materials. The limits for radium
contained within these guidelines are To-Be-
Considered guidelines with regard to this site and,
therefore, provide a set of criteria to determine
which structures and above-ground debris pose an
unacceptable risk of radiation exposure.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SUMMARY
In 1990, EPA initiated an RI to characterize the
nature and extent of contamination at the High and
Alden Streets, Vicinity and Satellite Properties study
areas. Field studies for all study areas began in
August 1991. In April 1993, EPA released the OUl
RI/FS report, presenting the results of field
investigations conducted at Vicinity and Satellite
Properties. The OU2 RI/FS report released
concurrently with this Proposed Plan presents the
results of field investigations conducted at the High
and Alden Streets Properties study area and four
non-residential nonadjacent properties not included
in OUl. The OU2 RI/FS report also discusses
investigation of ground water to date; however, the
results of EPA's ground water investigation are
inconclusive, and further evaluation will be
undertaken.
Soil and Construction Material Investigations
Properties included in OU2 were surveyed for
radioactive materials to define the limits of
-------
contamination. Radiological investigations included
the collection of radon gas samples from inside
buildings, and interior/exterior surveying of each
property to identify areas of elevated gamma
radiation. Wherever elevated gamma radiation
readings were detected, additional samples were
collected to characterize the extent of contaminants
present.
Because of the long and varied history of industrial
use at the High and Alden Streets Properties study
area, additional field investigations were performed
to augment the studies described above. Surface and
subsurface soil samples were collected and analyzed
for selected radionuclides and nonradiological,
chemical analyses for metals, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic
compounds, pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs).
The following is a summary of the RI findings.
High and Alden Streets Properties
• Soil contaminated with radium and other
radionuclides is found on a substantial
portion of the High and Alden Streets
Properties study area. Radiological
contamination is present in some locations
to a depth of 15 feet. An estimated 18,000
cubic yards of soil have elevated radium
concentrations. In addition, approximately
110 cubic yards of structural material are
similarly contaminated.
• Gamma radiation exposure rates
associated with contaminated soils range
from background (less than 10 |iR/hr) to
700 uR/hr. All buildings on the High and
Alden Streets Properties contain elevated
levels of radon gas, with levels ranging
from 12.7 pCi/1 to 110 pCi/1. Elevated
concentrations of both fixed and
removable building surface contamination
are detected in some of the older on-site
structures.
• Soil samples collected and analyzed for
chemical (non-radiological) contaminants
indicate the presence of low levels of some
contaminants (metals and semi-volatiles)
in soils at the High and Alden Streets
Properties. Chemical soil contamination is
sporadic.
Four Nonadiacent OU2 Properties
• Studies of the four nonadjacent OU2
properties indicated the presence of
elevated levels of radiological
contamination. Three properties contain
elevated levels of radium, found in both
soil and structural materials, resulting in
elevated gamma radiation levels. Elevated
radon levels, along with elevated levels of
both fixed and removable building surface
contamination, were detected at one
property. The fourth property is the only
property investigated as part of the site
contaminated with thorium-232 (Th-232).
Approximately 400 cubic yards of
contaminated soil and 40 cubic yards of
contaminated structural material were
found at these four properties.
Wigwam Brook and Ground Water Investigations
Surface water and stream sediments were collected
from Wigwam Brook and analyzed for radiological
and chemical contaminants. Four ground water
monitoring wells were installed at the High and
Alden Streets Properties study area. These four
wells and four existing wells (one municipal supply
well, one commercial production well and two private
monitoring wells) were sampled and analyzed for
radionuclides and chemical contaminants. The
findings of the RI are summarized below.
• No elevated radiological contamination
was found in surface water or sediment
samples from Wigwam Brook.
• No chemical contamination attributable to
the site was found in surface water or
sediment samples from Wigwam Brook.
• Elevated uranium concentrations were
detected in EPA's monitoring wells IS and
3, and an elevated radium concentration
was detected in EPA monitoring well IS.
No other ground water sampling locations
had elevated levels of radionuclides.
• VOCs, including tetrachloroethylene
(PCE), trichloro-ethylene (TCE) and 1,2-
-------
dichloroethylene (1,2-DCE), were detected
in EPA monitoring wells above federal or
state Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) for drinking water.
• VOCs were also detected in the municipal
and non-potable, private wells sampled
over an area covering about one square
mile around the site. No definite pattern
of VOC contamination was evident, nor
could a defined plume of ground water
contamination be identified. (Municipal
drinking water supply wells in the area
have treatment systems to remove VOCs;
there are no known private drinking water
wells located near the site.)
Because EPA monitoring wells are contaminated
with site-related and potentially unrelated
contaminants, and information is currently not
available to determine the extent to which site-
related contaminants may be migrating into the
ground water, EPA will further investigate the
nature and extent of ground water contamination. In
summary, site activities do not appear to be
adversely impacting Wigwam Brook. Local
municipal water supply wells are not contaminated
with radionuclides.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
During the OU2 RJ/FS, EPA performed a baseline
risk assessment of exposure to contaminants at the
U.S. Radium Corporation site. This baseline risk
assessment estimates the human health risk which
could result from the contamination at the site if no
remedial action were taken.
To evaluate human health risks, a four-step process
was used for assessing site-related risks for a
reasonable maximum exposure scenario. These steps
are: Hazard Identification - identified the contami-
nants of concern at the site based on several factors
such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and
concentration; Exposure Assessment - estimated the
magnitude of actual and/or potential human
exposures, the frequency and duration of these
exposures, and the pathways (e.g., ingesting
contaminated soil) by which humans are potentially
exposed; Toxicitv Assessment - determined the types
of adverse health effects associated with exposures to
site contaminants, and the relationship between
magnitude of exposure (dose) and severity of adverse
effects (response); and Risk Characterization -
summarized and combined outputs of the exposure
and toxicity assessments to provide a quantitative
(e.g., one-in-a-million excess cancer risk) assessment
of site-related risks.
For risk assessment purposes, individual
contaminants are typically separated into two
categories of health hazard depending on whether
they exhibit carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic effects.
Radionuclides (e.g., radium, thorium, radon, radon
decay products) are known carcinogens.
Nonradiological, "chemical" contaminants (e.g.,
polyaromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs], barium,
vanadium, cadmium and lead) may exhibit both
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic health effects.
Current federal guidelines for acceptable exposures
are an individual lifetime excess carcinogenic risk in
the range of 10"* to 10"6, representing an increased
probability of one in ten thousand to one in one
million that an individual could develop cancer
resulting from exposure to site-related contaminants,
and a maximum health Hazard Index (which reflects
noncarcinogenic effects for a human receptor) equal
to 1.0. (A Hazard Index greater than 1.0 indicates a
potential for noncarcinogenic health effects.) It must
be noted, however, that the risk posed by naturally
occurring background radiation appears high when
compared to the potential risk posed by
nonradiological carcinogens. During the RI, natural
background radiation was measured and used to
estimate the risk of cancer to the general public.
The risk of cancer to the public was estimated to be
2 x 10'3, representing a probability of two in one
thousand that an individual could develop cancer
resulting from exposure to natural background
radiation. The excess risk to individuals at
contaminated properties has been evaluated with
respect to this background risk.
To evaluate human health risk, several exposure
pathways were selected for detailed evaluation under
current land-use conditions. In addition, potential
future land-use conditions were considered for the
High and Alden Streets Properties.
All of the current land-use conditions involved the
potential exposure of workers or occupants of
commercial properties, and trespassers on unused
properties. Conversion from commercial to
residential use was considered as a future scenario
for the High and Alden Streets Properties, resulting
-------
in potential exposures to residents. The exposure
pathways were similar for current and future land-
use situations: inhalation of radon decay products;
exposure to external gamma radiation emanating
from radium-contaminated material; ingestion of
radionuclides in soil; and inhalation of radium-
contaminated particulates. In addition, a future
residential land-use condition resulted in several
added exposure pathways for on-site residents:
ingestion of radionuclides, cadmium and vanadium,
either from inadvertent ingestion of soil or in locally
grown produce.
In all current and future land-use situations,
inhalation exposure to radon decay products is
consistently the major contributor to the total cancer
risk that may be incurred by individuals at
contaminated properties. Exposure to gamma
radiation also provides a significant component of
the overall radiogenic cancer risk. Ingestion of
radium, cadmium and vanadium is several orders of
magnitude lower in risk than that of the other two
pathways. Inhalation exposure to paniculate radium
is an insignificant contributor to the total risk.
For the four nonadjacent OU2 properties, the
estimated excess lifetime cancer risk ranged up to 5 x
10'3 (five in one thousand). For the High and Alden
Streets Properties, the estimated excess lifetime risks
under current and future land-use conditions were 1
x 10"2 (one in one hundred) and 2 x 10"1 (two in ten),
respectively.
Exposure to chemical (nonradiological) contaminants
under future land-use conditions contributed a
marginally elevated Hazard Index and cancer risk at
the High and Alden Streets Properties study area;
however, these risks are trivial relative to those
resulting from radionuclide exposure.
Unusually high concentrations of naturally occurring
radon have not been associated with the
communities where OU2 properties are located.
Exposure to elevated levels of gamma radiation, and
the pathways for the inhalation and ingestion of
radium, pose risks not typically encountered in areas
of naturally occurring radon. The close proximity of
the radium-contaminated soil to the ground surface
or radiological contamination in building construction
material at contaminated properties is the main
reason for these additional risks.
An evaluation of ecological risk was not conducted as
part of OU2. It was determined in OU1 that,
because of the urban setting associated with the
contaminated areas, the likelihood of contact of
contaminants with ecological receptors was minimal.
For example, Wigwam Brook serves primarily as a
stormwater drainage culvert in this area. The one
possible exception would be receptors down stream
of Wigwam Brook; however, because of the length of
time since the original deposition of material and the
lack of any current releases from the High and Alden
Streets Properties study area into the brook, the
likelihood of exposure is considered minimal.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous
substances from this site, if not addressed by the
preferred alternative or one of the other active
measures considered, may present a current or
potential threat to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF ACTION FOR OU2
PROPERTIES
As described above, this Proposed Plan addresses the
second operable unit for the site and identifies the
preferred remedy for the High and Alden Streets
Properties study area and four nonadjacent
properties not addressed in the first operable unit.
Remedial Action Objectives
EPA proposes the following remedial action
objectives for this second operable unit of the U.S.
Radium Corporation site:
• Reduce exposure to radon gas levels in
excess of 4 pCi/1 and radon decay
products in excess of 0.02 WL.
• Reduce exposure to gamma radiation
emitted from radium-contaminated
material resulting from site sources with
radium concentrations in excess of 5
pCi/g, employing ALARA principles.
• Prevent ingestion of and general contact
with radium-contaminated material
resulting from site sources with radium
concentrations in excess of 5 pCi/g,
employing ALARA principles.
-------
These remedial action objectives are similar to those
selected for the Montclair/West Orange and Glen
Ridge Radium (MWG) sites and for OU1 of this site
and would, at minimum, achieve the cleanup criteria
in 40 CFR 192. Region II has determined that the 5
pCi/g standard found in 40 CFR 192 is relevant and
appropriate for cleanup at the U.S. Radium site.
In achieving the remedial action objectives for OU2,
EPA would rely on the ALARA principles used at
the MWG sites during implementation of the
response action. Applying ALARA principles means
taking additional measures during remedial action,
beyond those required to meet a specified cleanup
goal, to assure protectiveness. Applying the 5 pCi/g
standard with ALARA principles at the MWG sites
has resulted in exposure levels that are lower than
the levels that would result from using the 5 pCi/g
standard alone. An ALARA approach is being used
at the MWG sites because of the long-lived nature of
radionuclides, the difficulty in eliminating routes of
exposure, limitations of the analytical equipment to
detect radionuclides, and site-specific factors which
may make it necessary to remove material at levels
below 5 pCi/g to achieve adequate public health
protection.
Certain structures and above-ground debris at the
affected properties are contaminated with radium.
Any remedial alternative considered for these
properties would be expected to satisfy the NCR
guidelines for surface contamination or, as
appropriate, the remedial action objectives employing
ALARA principles to help ensure protectiveness.
EPA's experience at the MWG sites has shown that
the remedial action objectives noted above can be
achieved and, by incorporating ALARA principles,
result in no elevated radon or gamma radiation levels
at the surface. Therefore, by using similar remedial
action objectives, the U.S. Radium site would pose
no unacceptable risk for residential uses after
cleanup, and would result in a cleanup that is
protective under CERCLA.
Vanadium and cadmium were detected in some
samples collected at the High and Alden Streets
Properties study area at levels that exceed
background for those metals; the levels pose some
marginal risk in several future-use scenarios. The
areas of radionuclide-soil contamination appear to be
contiguous with the areas of vanadium/cadmium
contamination. The remedial alternatives considered
below take into account the metals contamination, in
that the limited options available for mitigating the
radium-contaminated soil would also adequately
address the metals contamination at the levels
detected.
FEASIBILITY STUDY
The information obtained from the RI was used to
conduct the FS. The FS report provides a detailed
evaluation of various options, referred to as remedial
alternatives, to address the site.
Summary of Remedial Alternatives
CERCLA requires that each selected site remedy be
protective of human health and the environment,
comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs), utilize permanent solutions
and alternative treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable, and be cost-effective. In addition, the
statute includes a preference for the use of treatment
as a principal element for the reduction of toxiciry,
mobility, or volume of hazardous substances.
Alternative 1: No Action
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 0
Estimated Annual Operation &
Maintenance (O&M) Costs: $ 0
Estimated Present Worth: $ 0
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: none
A No Action alternative is evaluated for every
Superfund site to establish a baseline for comparison
with remedial alternatives. Under this alternative, no
further action would be taken to reduce exposure to
radioactive materials at these properties. The
temporary radon mitigation system already installed
at one OU2 property during the 1991 removal action
would remain in place, but there would be no
provision for operation and maintenance. No
additional measures would be taken to reduce
exposures at properties that are not presently being
addressed. Even with a long projected life for the
radon mitigation system, it is assumed that it would
eventually fail and that indoor concentrations of
radon and radon decay products would return to the
pre-mitigation conditions.
-------
10
Because hazardous substances would remain at the
OU2 properties above acceptable levels, five-year
reviews would be required.
Alternative 2: Institutional and Engineering Controls
Estimated Capital Cost: $12,716,000
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 107,000
Estimated Present Worth: $13,740,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 3 years
This alternative involves the implementation of one
or more of the following engineering controls, as
determined to be necessary, in areas where
contamination has been identified and measures have
yet to be taken:
• Installation of systems to reduce indoor
concentrations of radon and radon decay
products;
* Installation of indoor gamma radiation
shielding;
• Outdoor gamma radiation shielding where
necessary; and
• In some cases, installation of fencing to
restrict property access.
During implementation of this action, temporary
relocation of some businesses may be required.
Institutional controls (e.g., municipal or health
ordinances, land-use restrictions) would also be
necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the
engineering controls.
Operation and maintenance of the action would also
be necessary, to assure the continued protectiveness
of the engineering controls. Because radium, which
persists for thousands of years, would not be
removed from the properties, the need for O&M
would continue for many years; however, for cost-
estimating purposes, O&M costs for maintaining the
radon mitigation systems and gamma radiation
shielding have been assumed for a period of 30
years. Because hazardous substances would remain
at the OU2 properties above acceptable levels, five-
year reviews of the remedy would be required. This
alternative would take approximately three years to
implement.
Alternative 3: On-site Containment
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 10,771,000
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 128,000
Estimated Present Worth: $ 11,990,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 2 years
Under this alternative, radium-contaminated
buildings at the High and Alden Streets Properties
and one nonadjacent OU2 property would be
dismantled. The dismantled building debris would be
sent to an appropriate off-site disposal facility. Soil
from the four nonadjacent OU2 properties would be
excavated and replaced with clean fill. The excavated
material from these four properties would be brought
to the High and Alden Streets Properties study area
for long-term containment. A containment facility
would be constructed by installing a cap and slurry
wall over the radium-contaminated soil at the High
and Alden Streets Properties study area.
During implementation of this action, temporary or
permanent relocation of businesses would be
required at some properties. Chemical
(nonradiological) soil contamination found at the
High and Alden Streets Properties would also be
enclosed under a cap. Engineering and institutional
controls similar to those described under Alternative
2 would be required for the High and Alden Streets
Properties; however, the four nonadjacent OU2
properties would be available for unrestricted use.
Because hazardous substances would remain at the
High and Alden Streets Properties study area above
acceptable levels, five-year reviews of the remedy
would be required to assure the continued
effectiveness of the remedy. This alternative would
take approximately two years to implement.
Alternative 4: Excavation and Off-site Disposal
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 22,030,000
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 0
Estimated Present Worth: $ 22,030,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 2 years
Under this alternative, radium-contaminated material
would be excavated or otherwise removed from
contaminated properties, and replaced with clean fill
or otherwise restored. It is estimated that
approximately 18,400 cubic yards of soil and 150
cubic yards of construction material are
contaminated with radionuclides. Contaminated
-------
11
material would be transported for final disposal at an
appropriate, off-site facility.
Based on experience at this site and the MWG sites,
material contaminated above background levels
would not remain within the first two feet of a
remediated property. In addition, based on data
available for the site and EPA's experience,
residually contaminated material remaining on
remediated properties would not be greater than two
feet in thickness.
During implementation of this action, relocation of
businesses would be required at some properties. In
addition, demolition of certain OU2 property
buildings may be required because of the unique
contaminant distributions at those properties.
Excavation and off-site disposal of radium-
contaminated soil from the High and Alden Streets
Properties would also remove nonradiological,
chemical contamination found in the soil. Because
this alternative would not result in elevated levels of
radionuclides remaining on any property, a five-year
review of the effectiveness of the remedy would not
be required. This alternative would take
approximately two years to implement.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
During the detailed evaluation of alternatives, each
alternative is assessed against nine evaluation
criteria. The nine criteria are described below.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment
This criterion addresses whether or not a
remedy provides adequate protection and
describes how risks are eliminated, reduced or
controlled through treatment, engineering
controls or institutional controls.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements of Federal or State of
New Jersey Regulations
This criterion addresses whether or not a
remedy will meet all of the applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements of other
environmental statutes and/or provide grounds
for invoking a waiver.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
This criterion refers to the ability of the remedy
to maintain reliable protection of human health
and the environment over time once cleanup
goals have been met.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume Through
Treatment
This criterion addresses the anticipated
performance of the treatment technologies that
a remedy may employ.
Short-Term Effectiveness
This criterion involves the period of time
needed to achieve protection and any adverse
impacts on human health and the environment
that may be posed during the construction and
implementation period until cleanup goals are
achieved.
Implementability
This criterion examines the technical and
administrative feasibility of a remedy, including
availability of materials and services needed to
implement a particular option.
Cost
This criterion includes capital operation and
maintenance costs, and net present worth.
State Acceptance
This criterion indicates whether, based on its
review of the RI/FS reports and the Proposed
Plan, the State concurs with, opposes, or has no
comment on the preferred alternative at the
present time.
Community Acceptance
This criterion will be addressed in the Record
of Decision following a review of the public
comments received on the RI/FS reports and
the Proposed Plan.
The remedial alternatives are evaluated utilizing the
above criteria. A discussion of these evaluations is
presented below.
-------
12
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The preferred alternative for the remediation of the
U.S. Radium Corporation site OU2 properties is
Alternative 4, Excavation and Off-site Disposal. A
comparison of the remediation alternatives follows.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment
Alternative 1, No Action, is not protective of human
health and the environment because the risks
associated with contaminated properties would
persist for the foreseeable future. Alternatives 2 and
3 reduce the possibility of exposure to contaminated
material and, therefore, reduce human health risks
associated with the site.
Alternative 4 is protective of human health and the
environment because it removes contamination from
the site.
Compliance with ARARs
No requirements have been determined to be
applicable to the remediation of the OU2 properties.
However, as discussed earlier, portions of the federal
regulations governing the cleanup of uranium mill
tailings from inactive uranium processing sites, 40
CFR 192, have been determined to be relevant and
appropriate.
Health- or risk-based standards include an annual
average exposure guideline of no more than 4 pCi/1
of air for radon, which corresponds to an
approximate annual average exposure of 0.02 WL for
radon decay products. Additionally, the standards
for the cleanup of radium-contaminated material
require that the concentration of radium-226,
averaged over an area of 100 square meters (120
square yards) of surface soil, be no greater than 5
pCi/g. For this site, the 5 pCi/g cleanup standard
also applies to subsurface soils.
Alternative 1 does not satisfy any of the human
health standards. Alternatives 2 and 3 satisfy human
health standards by reducing exposures to radiation
in excess of natural background levels; however,
continued operation and maintanence are required
to assure continued attainment of these standards.
Alternative 4 satisfies human health standards by
removing the source of exposures to radiation in
excess of natural background levels.
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would satisfy the threshold
requirements of overall protection of human health
and the environment with regard to chemical
(nonradiological) contaminants.
Because Alternative 1, No Action, does not meet the
threshold requirements of overall protection of
human health and the environment or compliance
with ARARs, it will not be considered further in the
evaluation of alternatives.
Long-Term Effectiveness And Permanence
Alternative 2 provides essentially no long-term
effectiveness or permanence. Alternative 3 provides
a marginally more effective long-term solution. It
would be difficult, however, to maintain a waste
disposal facility containing radioactive wastes with
long half-lives (about 1,600 years for Ra-226) in a
densely populated area. Alternative 3 would allow
for unrestricted future use of the four nonadjacent
OU2 properties, but not the High and Ald^n Streets
Properties. Alternative 4 is fully effective in the
community for the long term, would allow for
unrestricted use of all the OU2 properties, and is
considered a final remedial solution.
Reduction of Toxiciry, Mobility and Volume Through
Treatment
No treatment technology is known today that can
effectively reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of
the radioactive contamination to the site-specific
cleanup criteria specified given the soil matrix found
at the OU2 properties. The total amount of
radioactivity cannot be altered or destroyed, as is
often possible with chemical contaminants.
Therefore, none of the remedial alternatives
considered fully satisfy this evaluation criterion.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 provide effective short-term
protection, and become effective as they are
implemented at individual properties. Any adverse
short-term impacts during implementation (such as
the creation of dust) can be controlled through the
use of measures such as dust suppression techniques.
Alternative 2 involves less intrusive activities and
poses less of a threat to workers and the surrounding
community than Alternative 3 or 4. Alternatives 3
and 4 require a comparable period of time to
-------
13
implement, two years. However, Alternatives 2, 3
and 4 involve intrusive activities, including, in some
cases, temporary or permanent relocation of
businesses. Alternatives 3 and 4 have a greater
potential adverse impact in the short term because of
the removal of radium-contaminated material,
including the excavation of soil. Engineering controls
would be required to minimize the impacts of these
alternatives.
Implementability
The indoor remedial activities associated with
Alternative 2 are generally straightforward to
implement and have been successfully implemented
at other sites. Extensive outdoor gamma radiation
shielding techniques have not been attempted or fully
demonstrated and, therefore, may create some
difficulties. State, County and Municipal authorities
would need to be involved in the process of
implementing the necessary institutional controls for
Alternatives 2 and 3.
Alternatives 3 and 4 involve the use of standard
construction practices. Implementation would be
expected to be straightforward and, in the case of
Alternative 4, has been successfully performed at the
MWG sites.
The continued availability of an off-site disposal
facility is required for implementation of Alterna-
tive 4.
Cost
Alternative 2 includes construction costs of $12.7
million to implement remedial measures at OU2
properties, and an annual O&M cost of $107,000 for
all properties for an assumed period of 30 years.
This results in an estimated present worth cost of
$ 13.7 million for the alternative. Alternative 3 has
an estimated present worth cost of $12 million, with
$ 128,000 in annual O&M costs assumed for a period
of 30 years. Alternative 4 involves construction costs
of $22 million, but no O&M costs.
State Acceptance
Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the preferred alternative
will be evaluated after the pubb'c comment period
ends and will be described in the Record of Decision
for the site.
SUMMARY OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Based on the information available to evaluate the
remedial alternatives against the nine criteria, EPA
has concluded that the preferred solution for OU2
properties at the U.S. Radium Corporation site is
Alternative 4, excavation of the radium-contaminated
soil and restoration of the affected properties with
clean fill, removal of radium-contaminated concrete
and other construction material and restoration to
the extent required, and disposal of all excavated or
removed radium-contaminated materials, at a
licensed, off-site disposal facility. The alternative
would also remediate the elevated concentrations of
vanadium and cadmium found at the High and Alden
Streets Properties study area.
Based on current information, Alternative 4 appears
to provide the best balance of trade-offs among the
alternatives with respect to the nine criteria. The
preferred alternative is protective of human health
and the environment, complies with ARARs, and is
cost-effective. This action would utilize permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies to
the maximum extent practicable.
The State of New Jersey supports the preferred
alternative.
-------
U.S. Radium Corporation site
Responsiveness Summary
Second Operable Unit
Appendix B: Public Notices
-------
Superfund Update-
SEPA
Region 2
U.S. Radium Corporation Site
Essex County, New Jersey
-May 1995
This Superfund Update provides the latest information on the United States Environmental Protection Agency's
{EPA's) field activities to residents and local officials living and working in the vicinity of the U.S. Radium
Corporation Superfund site. The Update focuses on two activites:
• progress on the first operable unit (OU1) selected remedy, involving about 75 residential and
commercial properties; and
• the Proposed Plan for remedial action for the second operable unit (OU2), which includes the
former U.S. Radium plant site at High andAlden Streets, and four other, non-adjacent properties.
PROGRESS ON THE FIRST OPERABLE UNIT
(OU1) PROPERTIES
OU1 Selected Remedy
A Record of Decision (ROD) for the first operable
unit (OU1) properties was signed on September 21,
1993. The ROD details the selected remedy for the
OU1 properties, which will involve excavation of the
radium-contaminated material at each property, with
off-site disposal of the excavated material. After the
radium-contaminated material has been removed,
confirmatory testing will be performed and the
property will be restored as necessary.
OU1 Remedial Design - Phase I
The remedial design associated with the first group
of OU1 properties is currently being prepared. It
will involve approximately 18 residential properties,
located throughout the U.S. Radium study area. It is
anticipated that remedial construction activities at
these Phase I properties will begin in late 1995.
Ongoing OU1 Property Surveys
Approximately 380 properties will be investigated as
part of OU1, with over 300 property surveys
completed thus far. The remaining 80 or so
properties are either awaiting a property survey or
EPA has yet to obtain access to the property.
Difficulty in obtaining access has led to delays in
completing this aspect of the site investigation. EPA
continues to try to gain access to these remaining
homes to complete this stage of the process.
Of the 300 property surveys performed to date, about
75 properties have been found to contain radium-
contaminated material requiring remedial action.
The first 18 properties are included in Phase I. In
June 1995, EPA will initiate remedial design surveys
on the next group of properties, which will become
Phase H.
SECOND OPERABLE UNIT (OU2) PROPOSED
PLAN
Concurrent with the release of this Superfund
Update, EPA is releasing a Proposed Plan for the
second operable unit (OU2) of the U.S. Radium
Corporation site, with support from the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection. OU2
includes the properties that once made up the U.S.
Radium Corporation radium-ore processing plant
along High and Alden Streets in Orange. OU2 also
includes four U.S. Radium-operated commercial
properties that are not adjacent to the original High
and Alden Streets plant, called the "non-adjacent
OU2 properties".
The OU2 Proposed Plan describes the remedial
alternatives considered for the OU2 properties, and
identifies EPA's preferred remedy. EPA conducted
a remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS)
-------
for OU2 to define the extent of contamination at the
OL'2 properties, and develop and evaluate measures
to protect public health. The alternatives considered
in the Proposed Plan consist of the following:
- No Action
- Institutional and Engineering Controls
- On-site Containment
- Excavation and Off-site Disposal
The Proposed Plan
EPA's preferred alternative for OU2 is Alternative 4,
Excavation and Off-site Disposal. The Proposed
Plan details the rationale for EPA's preference of
Alternative 4. As part of its public participation
responsibilities under Superfund, EPA is soliciting
comment on the Proposed Plan and the RI/FS
report. Written comments should be sent to:
John Prince
Remedial Project Manager
New Jersey Superfund Branch I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway
New York, New York 10007-1866
The final remedy will be documented in a ROD after
consideration of comments on the Proposed Plan and
RI/FS report. Comments will be accepted through
June 21, 1995. Also, a public meeting has been
scheduled for June 1, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. at the
Orange City Hall Council Chambers, located at 29
North Day Street in Orange, to present the findings
of the RI/FS report and the Proposed Plan.
For Further Information
If you would like more information about the U.S.
Radium Corporation site, EPA has placed important
site documents at the following locations:
Orange Public Library
348 Main Street
Orange, New Jersey
West Orange Public Library
46 Mount Pleasant Avenue
West Orange, New Jersey
If you have any questions about the site or your
property, please contact EPA at (201) 676-3331. If
you hear a recorded message, please leave your
name, address and telephone number, and an EPA
representative will get back to you shortly. If you
would like to speak to EPA's project manager
directly, please call John Prince at (212) 637-4382.
Dates to remember:
MARK YOUR CALENDAR
May 22,1995 through June 21,1995
Public comment period on RI/FS report, Proposed
Plan, and remedies considered
June 1, 1995
Public meeting at the Orange City Halt Council
Chambers, 29 North Day Street at 7:00 pm.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
} Region 2: NJ, NY, PR, VI
* 290 Broadway
New York, New York 10007-1866
NEWS
95(44) Rich Cahill (212) 637-3665
FOR RELEASE: Tuesday, May 23, 1995
EPA TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETING IN ORANGE ON CLEAN-UP PLAN FOR D.S.
RADIUM SUPERFUND SITE IN ESSEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK, N.Y. — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is holding a public meeting in the City of Orange, New
Jersey on June 1st to discuss its plan to clean up radium-
contaminated materials at the U.S. Radium Corporation Superfund
site at High and Alden Streets. The plan also calls for the
cleanup of similar materials at four commercial properties in the
area. The contaminated material would be disposed of at a
licensed, out-of-state disposal facility under the plan. The
radium-contaminated materials at the site, which covers about 2
acres, originated from radium processing and utilization by the
former U.S. Radium Corporation from 1917 to 1926.
The meeting on Thursday, June 1st will start at 7 P.M. in the
Council Chambers of the City of Orange Municipal Building. Copies
of the plan and other site-related documents are available for
public review at the Orange Public Library and the West Orange
Public Library. The public comment period on EPA's plan started
on May 22nd and ends on June 21st. Written comments on the plan
should be addressed to John Prince, Remedial Project Manager,
USEPA, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, 19th Floor, 290
Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.
- more -
-------
- 2 -
In September 1993, EPA selected a cleanup plan that will remove
soil that contains radium-226 and other radioactive materials
from about 120 scattered residential and commercial properties
located primarily in the City of Orange, with the rest in South,
East and West Orange, Essex County, New Jersey. The contaminated
material will be disposed of at a licensed, out-of-state disposal
facility. This action will be carried out over the next four
years at a cost of $14.1 million.
People may suffer adverse health effects from long-term exposure
to gamma re^Jiation and inhalation of radioactive dust particles,
or inadvertent ingestion of radioactive particles.
Past actions by EPA resulted in the restriction of public access
to hot spots, thereby making the site safer while the
investigations leading to the selection of cleanup methods for
the site were underway. Interim measures were also taken to
reduce the levels of radon at other residential and commercial
properties, which further minimized potential radiation
exposures.
###
-------
eecroooooo oop oj^p o
U C O
OOO
C OO
O G O O O«
OOOOOCB
OOOOOB
OOOOO«
O C O • €•
• w 'J G C
O O O
O O O
Of
• <
C t
O'
C€
c i- c c c G G C
-••:-:uo
x- •
V
. - :: 3
';) c:
PUBLIC MEETING
PROPOSED PLAN TO BE DISCUSSED FOR
U.S. Radium Corporation Supertund Site, Operable Unit 2
Orange, New Jersey
The United State* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will how an informational
public mMtlng on Thursday. Jura 1,1995. at 7:00 pm. In the Omnga City Hall Council
Chamber*, located at 29 North Day Street trf Orange. New Jersey. EPA will discuss me
findings of a recently completed remedial Investigation and feasibility study and
announce the proposed remedy (or the cleanup of the former U.S. Radium Corporation
plant site on Alden Street riear die comer of High Street, and (our other non-adjacent but
related commercial properties located In Orange. These properties comprise Operable
Unit 2 of tne U.S. Radium Corporation Supertund site.
The study evaluated four alternatives for addressing radium-contaminated soil and
structural materials (e.g., concrete, wood, gravel, etc.). These are:
1) No Action;
2) Engineering and Institutional Controls;
3) On-site Containment; and
4) Excavation and Off-site disposal.
EPA's proposed remedial alternative la Alternative 4, under wnkti radium-contaminated
material would be removed and transported oft site for disposal. All of these alternatives
are discussed in the Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 2.
Before selecting a final remedy. EPA will consider written and oral comments on tne
proposed alternative, aa well as tne other alternatives mat were considered. Comments
must be received on or before June 21.1995. The final dectston document will include a
em finery of pubttc comments and EPA responses.
The remedial Investigation and leasttlty study report. Proposed Plan, and other site-
«attted documents have been placed in the information repositories I
Orange PuMc Ubrary
348 Mam Street
Orange, New Jen0y
West Orange Ubrary
46 Mount Pleasant Avenue
West Orange. New Jersey
Written comments on the proposed alternative, aa well as any other alternatives
considered, should be sent to:
John Prince, Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway
New York. New York 10007-1866
-------
• HERNIA • HIATUS HERNIA
• GALL BLADDER
STEVEN I. BECKER* M.D.,
Board Certified General Surgeon
fait UmvtrHty School «/ M«fc int CenijSi
33-00 BROADWAY, FAIR LAWN
WO-252-7370 • 201-797-3040
CoreStates
ic Days.
Get This Special CD Rate
May 24th and 25th Only!
As a CoreStates Blue Ribbon or
UniFmancial* customer, you deserve some-
thing extra. That's why we're adding a .25%
premium to all our regular CO yields for
Extra Value Days.
Whether you're currently a Premium
Banking Package customer or just opening
your account, you can get this extra special
5.90% Annual Percentage Yield (AJY) on a
5-momh CD.
Or add .25% to any of our other terms,
ncluding IRA CDs. But don't wait.
To open your CD by phone or ID learn
how you can become a CoreStates
Premium Banking Package customer
1-800-222-0246
Or stop by any CoreStates New Jersey
ational Bank for details. But hurry! It's
fo days only.
r cu\rointr\ only
j»oi penalty will tm|M*o> McntbcMTOIC.
ii*luik« .
l>
0-....1 iui anon uao shoved a l
percent drop.
Every region reported a decline to
reported crime: 5 percent in the North-
can, 2 percent in the South, and l pet-
cent in the Midwwt and ia the Weft.
violent crtanc declined In all reflona
and property crtme abowed a wJuctton
in all but the West, where tt remained
attheimtertL
Among cWea, the largest decline
m overall reported crtme TOI 6 percent
in those with more Uum 1 ndfllon ret-
dent*. AH others showed smaUer de-
dines except titin of 10,000 to 04,999,
where reported crtme mnainedtewl,
In subfurbs, overall crime chewed
no change-, tt Incretsed tr/1 percent in
rural area.
In New Jersey, serious crime
dropped a Uttte leas then 3 percent m
Sttiabeth and Mew«rt; renamed about
the same in Jersey C3£y tart dropped al-
most 12 percent In Pateison.
«« »> u« r 01. in other sencus
categohes lor urban New Jersey, re-
ported rapes fen H percent, robbery
ten 4 percent and aggravated assault
was unchanged.
The FBI's total of seven major
dimes reported to law enforcement na-
tionwide decnned 2 percent m 1993 and
3 percent m 1991
violent cilme-mistier, rape, rob-
bery and aggravated assault-was un-
changed in 1993 from the 1992 figures.
Property crime declined 2 percent ia
1993 and 4 percent u 1992.
"WeTe now in the tuB before the
crime storm,1'Fox saw. AS the children
of baby boomers age, "by the year 2005,
we wffl have 23 percent more teenagers
than now."
Tte problem is confined to boys
with guns. The bomickte rate among
teenage gtts has not risen.
"Once 1914, the number of teen-
agers committing murder with a gon
has quadrupled. The number of teen-
Public Meeting
VepoMd Plan to be Olt cuM«d fo
for
U.S. Radium Corporation Sopodund Stto, OB*raM« UnH 1
Orange), New Jeney
8tdM envtronmantal Protection Agancy (EPA) *SJ Notd an
l public m««ttna on Thuraday, Jun« i, 1896, at 7:00 pm, In uw
Hal Counc* Chambara. located It 29 North Day 8tro«t in
The Unnad 8tdM envtronmantal
Informational
Oranga City Hal Counc* Chambara. located It 29 North Day
Oraiig*, Naw Jarwy. SPA wtt dlacuaa tr» flndtoga ol • rteantly compfetad
remedial invwatfaaUon and faaalbtUty study and announoa me propoaad
remedy for the aeanup of the termer U.8. Radium Corporation plant ttta on
AMen Street new trie corner of High Street, end tour other non-ed|eoem
but reteted commercial propefttea located In Orange, Theee propenlee
comprtee Operable UnK 2 of the u.3. Radtum Corporation Superfund ttte.
Tht study evmhteted tour eRemaUvee tor eddrwebtg radkjnv«entemlneted
•ott end •truetum miterutto (•.$., concrete, wood, gravel, etc.)- Thee* ve:
DNoAqUon;
Z) Enotneertng and tnatttuttooil Controla;
3) On-eKe Contammeou and
4) Excavettan and Otl.ttte Olapoeal.
EPA'a propoeed remedial ettemettve i» Anemettve 4, under whtoh radhim
contamuwted matertal would be removed and tranaported art *n« to
dlepoaai. Al of theea attematrMe are dlecuaeed In the Propoaed Plan to
OperaMeUnlta.
Wore a»ecuno a rtnet remedy, EPA wlU conaWer written and on
comment! on the propoeed alternative, aa weH aa the other alternative* thi
were considered. Commenta mutt be received on or before June 21,196
The final declatan document win include a eummary of puMto eommerr
and EPA reaponeee.
The remedial inveettBatlon and teaafbiHty atudy report. Propoeed Plan, at
other «ite-reiated dooumema have been placed in the mtormatl
report ortea UeiAd batovr
Orange Public Ubrary
S4S Main Street -
Orange. New Jerety
Weat Oranae Ubrary
46 Mount Ptoeaant Avenue
Wait Orange. New Jersey
Written commenta on the propoaad alternative, ai well u any ot
aftamativea cortaWered. atwutd be eent to:
John Prince, Remedial Protect Manager
U.S. Envtronmantal ft oteetlon Agency
2M Broadway
New York. New York 10007-1866 «
JUT.
me:
no
ha
It's
no i
we
sc
tr.
Si
f
C
I
t
-------
U.S. Radium Corporation Site
Responsiveness Summary
Second Operable Unit
Appendix C: Public Meeting Transcript
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NEW JERSEY SUPERFUND BRANCH I
IN THE MATTER OF: : PUBLIC HEARING
EPA SUPERFUND :
U.S. RADIUM CORPORATION SITE :
ESSEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY :
June 1, 1995
8 Council Chambers
City Hall
9 29 N. Day Street
Orange, New Jersey
10 Commencing at 7:07 p.m.
11 PRESENT:
12 JOHN PRINCE
EPA REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGER
13
PAT SEPPI
14 EPA COMMUNITY RELATIONS COORDINATOR
15 ROBERT MC KNIGHT
EPA SECTION CHIEF
16
ALAN FELLMAN, Ph D
17 MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.
18 ROBERT KERBEL
MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.
19
THOMAS J. MORRISON III
20 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR, CITY OF ORANGE
21
22
23 ROBERTS, WALSH & ASSOCIATES
Certified Shorthand Reporters
24 425 Eagle Rock Avenue
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
25 201-228-9280
-------
TRANSCRIPT of proceedings taken by
and before JOANNE M. OPPERMANN, a Notary Public and
Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of New
Jersey, at City Hall, 29 N. Day Street, Orange, New
Jersey, on June 1, 1995, commencing at 7:07 p.m.
MR. MORRISON: I'm Thomas Morrison, your
Business Administrator, City of Orange. This is the
next in a series of EPA Public Hearings on the
10. North Ward and surrounding ward radon situations in
11 people's homes.
12 Many of you have come to other
13 meetings-- I wouldn't say many, there may be a
14 few-- and there have been a lot of people that the
15 federal government has contacted in this last year,
16 year and a half, period of time, to try and resolve
17 the situations that we have that revolve around a
18 radon plant in the North Ward.
19 I certainly want to thanJc the EPA for
20 these series of meetings and their efforts in
21 cleaning up a problem that has existed for a long
22 time, 40, 50 years, and at least 10 to 15 years of
23 abandonment of some properties that would be
24 important to us on Alden Street.
25 So, they are certainly going to go
-------
through a presentation this evening. They will tell
you who to be in contact with, but at any point in
time, if we as a city can be helpful in this
inner - relationship, we would be happy to, and I
certainly will give you cards later on as to how to
contact me here in City Hall.
Without further adieu, I'd like to
8 bring forth those from EPA who are kind enough to
9 be here this evening and give their presentation.
10 MS. SEPPI: My name is Pat Seppi and I'm
11 with tne U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and I
12 want to thank you for coming out to this meeting
13 this evening. I know it's a nice night outside. I'm
14 sure you would rather be home.
15 The purpose of this meeting tonight is
16 twofold. We want to tell you about the cleanup plan
17 that EPA has come up with for the U.S. Radium site
18 that's located here in Orange, and, secondly, we
19 want to open the floor to questions and answers
20 when we're done. Hopefully, we'll have the answers
21 to your questions. If not, we'll get them for you
22 and get back to you at a later date.
23 I wanted to introduce the other people
24 that are here this evening. From EPA, John Prince,
25 who is the project manager for EPA; and Bob Me
-------
Knight who is also section chief for EPA; also we
have two gentlemen from Malcolm, Pirnie, Bob Kerbel
who is the manager, actually, of all the in-field
investigations that are going on right now, and
Alan Fellman who is an expert in health physics.
If anybody has any questions related to risks, as
far as radium-contaminated soil is concerned, Alan
8 will be here to answer your questions.
9 So, we do have a brief presentation.
10 John has assured me it's .only about 10 or 15
11 minutes. Then, as I said, we'll open up the meetin9
12 to questions and answers.
13 There is a sign-in sheet up front. If
14 you would be so kind as to sign it, I would
15 appreciate it. We have a mailing list. If you are
16 not on the mailing list, this will assure that you
17 do get on it.
18 Secondly, you will notice that this is
19 being recorded by a stenographer. So when we get to
20 the question and answer portion, if you would state
21 your name before you ask your question, because we
22 want to have a record of these comments this
23 evening.
24 Part of the Proposed Plan is a comment
25 period. Tonight we'll be taking oral comments from
-------
anyone who has questions. If anyone has a written
question that may come up, or a question that may
come up that you want to write to us after this
meeting, come up to me afterwards. If you don't
know the address, I'll give that to you. That
comment period ends June 21st. There is about three
more-weeks to get your written comments in.
The Proposed Plan itself is in your
library if anyone would like to go and read it. The
10 Proposed Plan, which some of you may have gotten in
11 the mail or some of you may have gotten a Superfund
12 Update-- the Proposed Plan sort of summarizes EPA1s
13 alternatives for cleaning up the U.S. Radium
14 Corporation site. There is a few different
15 alternatives in there and then the final
16 alternative that the EPA has chosen as their
17 preferred one.
18 What happens after this, we take all
19 the comments into consideration, we go back and
20 write the final decision document that's called a
21 "Record of Decision."
22 That's all I have to say. I'd like to
23 turn this over to John Prince for his presentation.
24 (Whereupon, there is an off- the - record
25 discussion.)
-------
MR. PRINCE: Thank you.
To some of you, this presentation might
sound quite familiar because in May of 1993 we were
here, making a very similar presentation about the
U.S. Radium site and about making a proposal for
cleaning up a portion of the site.
The result of that proposal was that
EPA signed what's called a "Record of Decision," in
September of 1993, for those properties, and EPA is
10 now proceeding with implementing that remedy at
11 those properties.
12 This meeting, and the proposal that is
13 the subject of this meeting, is about a different
14 group of properties also associated with the U.S.
15 Radium Corporation site.
16 The first group of properties we call
17 "Operable Unit l." It's sort of our shorthand for
18 that group of properties. This group of properties
19 .we call "Operable Unit 2" (indicating), and I'm
20 going to describe the site in general terms and
21 then I'll explain what's in Operable Unit l and
22 what's in Operable Unit 2.
23 This is a map (indicating.) You all
24 have-- if you grabbed the handout, you have a copy
25 of this map also.
-------
So, if you look at High and Alden
Streets here in Orange, you'll notice at the center
is a former U.S. Radium Corporation- operated
facility. It's about two acres on Alden Street near
the corner of High Street. That's the first study
area and we call that the "High and Alden Street
Study Area."
8 Surrounding that is the "Vicinity
9 Properties Study Area" because it's in the vicinity
10 of the original plant. It involves about 330
11 residential and commercial properties. Some of
12 those properties have been identified to contain
13 some of the material from the U.S. Radium site.
14 And then there is a third study area,
15 which is called the "Satellite Properties," and it
16 is not depicted on the map because it's located
17 further away. It totals about 50 properties. They
18 are single properties and then small clusters,
19 small groups of properties. They were identified by
20 going back and looking at some of the U.S. Radium
21 corporate records and identifying where some of the
22 off-site operations of the corporation took place
23 and where some of the residences of some of the
24 executives of the U.S. Radium Corporation were.
25 So, those are the three study areas,
-------
the Plant Site, the Vicinity Properties and then
the Satellite Properties.
The first operable unit includes about
75 residential and commercial properties away from
the original plant site. So, of these many, many
properties, we have done studies and identified
about 75 so far, that have some level of this
8 material that will require action to satisfy our
9 selected remedy, and we're in the design stage of
10 that work. We expect that first excavations on the
11 first properties will take place early next year,
12 the spring of 1996. So, there will be several
13 groups, but the first group of about 18 we expect
14 to be getting to early next year.
15 So, the second operable unit, the
16 subject of this evening's meeting, really includes
17 what's left, which is the Plant Site and then four
18 other properties, four commercial properties that
19 were also places where U.S. Radium worked, places
20 where they were actually doing their various
21 activities.
22 Let me get to describing those
23 activities.
24 U.S. Radium started work at this plant
25 in about 1915, 1916. The business was bringing an
-------
ore, which was high in radium content, to this
facility, extracting the radium, and then they used
that product for various purposes.
The ore, after it had been processed,
still contained some radium, and that material was
deposited, some on the property, some away from the
property, and the resulting disposition we see at
8 some of these Vicinity Properties that are
9 associated with the first operable unit.
10 We also believe that they are
11 associated with the Montclair, West Orange and Glen
12 Ridge radium sites. We believe that most of the
13 radium material from this plant actually created
14 those properties.
15 I should tell you a little bit about
16 radium itself. Radium is a rare radioactive metal
17 which, like all radioactive substances, goes
18 through a process of radioactive decay, releasing a
19 certain amount of energy and forming actually
20 another element. In the case of radium it decays
21 in forms of radon gas.
22 Radium is naturally occurring; it's
23 found in soil, it's found throughout the surface of
24 the earth, and it's found in certain ores to a
25 greater degree, like the ore that U.S. Radium was
-------
processing at this plant. Radon is also naturally
occurring, and it tends to be present at higher
concentrations when one has higher concentrations
of radon.
There are health effects that are
associated with exposure to radionuclides like
radium and radon, and those health effects are
generally put into two categories, acute health
effects and long-term or chronic health effects.
10 Acute health defects would be associated with
11 generally short-term exposures to very high levels
12 of radiation, and radiation sickness is the result
13 of those acute health effects.
14 In all of the studies we have done at
15 the U.S. Radium sites, we haven't seen any levels
16 that would result in acute health effects. There
17 are levels of material at the plant site that,
18 under certain circumstances, could present a
19 long-term health effect, which would result from
20 long-term exposure to even low levels of
21 radionuclides.
22 . One thing I do need to mention is that
23 radionuclides are part of the crust of the earth
24 and natural radiation is sort of something that we
25 live with and there is a certain sort of a natural
-------
background radiation tnat's associated with living
on this planet. The levels associated with this
plant site are elevated above that natural
background level, and exposure to, say, a worker at
that plant site, who worked there over a number of :
years, could result in an increased risk of cancer. ',
An.-her example would be exposure to :
radon gas and radon decay products over a long :
i
!
period of time, resulting in an increased risk of j
10 lung cancer. . •
11 I'll talk a little bit about the plant
12 site itself and what we have found.
13 We investigated all the properties that
14 are associated with this second operable unit. The
15 main problems that we found-- this figure is also
16 in your handout-- the main problems that we found
17 are associated with the soils and associated with
18 some of the older buildings that remain on this
19 facility.
20 What this map represents, this is High
21 Street and Alden Street, and these darker areas
22 represent deeper levels of contamination
23 (indicating.) So, this sort of is a quantification
24 of the extent of contamination.
25 We also found elevated levels of radon
-------
12
in the buildings located on this facility, and, as
I say, some of the older portions of the buildings
that were there, at the time U.S. Radium was
operating, have some building surface contaminants
as a result.
6 The four commercial properties that are
7 away from this facility are-- it's mainly building
8 surface contamination as a result of activities
9 that were going on at the'plant site at that time--
10 at those various facilities at the time, rather.
11 We also found some low-level chemical
12 contamination, nonradiological contamination, at
13 this facility, and it may be related to U.S. Radium
14 activities and it may be related to some activities
15 that took place after U.S. Radium sold the
16 property. But the primary concern-- EPA's primary
17 concern are these levels of radium contamination.
IS We also took some samples in Wigwam
19 Brook, which runs alongside of the site here
20 (indicating), and did not find any problems
21 associated with Wigwam Brook.
22 We installed some monitoring wells to
23 examine the groundwater immediately below the site,
24 to try and assess whether there is a possibility
25 that groundwater might be affected from the site.
-------
13
While we did get some information, we
really don't have a complete handle on the extent
of what might be a problem. There were some low
levels of groundwater contaminants. Some of them
may be associated with the site, but there is some
additional studies that need to take place and
that's not actually part of the proposal in the
8 Proposed Plan.
9 EPA has been doing some sampling,
10 periodically, of the drinking water supplies in
11 this area, just as an extra "heck to make sure that
12 there isn't any effect from the site that might be
13 getting to the municipal supplies, and we have not
14 found any problems. The municipalities do a very
15 good job of testing and treating the water to make
16 sure that it's safe to drink.
17 That's a real quick summary of the
18 investigations that we have done. I'm now going to
19 describe the alternatives that we considered in
20 considering how to address this second operable
21 unit, and I'll say that I'm going to go through
22 these very quickly. There is a lot of additional
23 information that is sort of the backup for
24 describing these alternatives, and it's available,
25 and we can explain after the meeting how you can
-------
14
find additional information if you are interested
in it, and then these alternatives are described
also in greater detail in the Proposed Plan itself.
So, there are four alternatives that we
came up with. One thing you need to know, as
regards to radionuclide contamination, is that
there is no way to destroy it and there is no way
8 to reduce the level of radioactivity. It's
9 impervious to that sort of treatment.
10 So, what we're left with is figuring
11 out ways that you can separate people from the
12 material so that they don't come in contact with
13 it.
14 So, these are the four alternatives
15 that were considered: "No Action"; "Engineering
16 Controls and Institutional Controls" is the second
17 alternative; Alternative 3 is "On-site
18 Containment"; and Alternative 4 is "Excavation and
19 Off-site Disposal."
20 Alternative l, "No Action," EPA is
21 obliged to consider no action as a baseline so that
22 we can compare active options and have some
23 baseline: Well, if there were no action taken,
24 what would be the effect?
25 Alternative 2, "Engineering and
-------
15
Institutional Controls," involve a number of
different things. For example, shielding of
material, that's in the ground or below a
structure, with either lead or concrete or soil;
fencings could be an institutional control, just
preventing people from getting access to an area;
radon mitigation systems, because radon tends to
concentrate inside structures, so that you can
prevent or minimize exposure to radon.
10 Alternative 3, "On-site Containment,"
11 woula involve bringing material from the f^ur
12 commercial properties not at this plant, to the
13 High and Alden Street facility, probably bringing
14 it down and then building a cap over the top of
15 this two-acre property and fencing it, then
16 providing some security. That would be the extent
17 of the action.
18 Then the fourth alternative, which is
19 "Excavation and Off-site Disposal," is actually
20 EPA's preferred alternative and I'll describe that
21 in a little more detail.
22 EPA expects it will cost approximately
23 $22 million to implement that action, "Excavation
24 and Off-site Disposal," and that it will take
25 approximately-- it would take approximately two
-------
16
years. It would involve digging up material,
contaminated material, transporting it off-site to
a landfill licensed to dispose of that material
appropriately, confirmatory testing in the
excavation area to assure that we have gotten all
the material out, and then filling the hole back
in, and restoration would follow. Again that's
8 EPA's preferred option.
9 That is pretty much the end of our
10 presentation. Again I'11.remind you that there is a
11 public comments period that's open until June 21&t.
12 Written comments will be accepted on the Proposed
13 Plan until then. Before EPA takes an action, we'll
14 consider those comments and there have been cases
15 where comments have been submitted that have
16 resulted in EPA changing remedies, changing
17 proposals. So we take those comments very
18 seriously.
19 I guess that's about it. I'm going to
20 reintroduce the people who will probably be
21 responding to questions along with myself; Bob Me
22 Knight with EPA, Pat Seppi with EPA, and then Bob
23 Kerbel, who's really responsible for our
24 investigations, and Dr. Alan Fellman whose
25 background is in health physics and has a lot of
-------
experience with the effects of radiation.
Please state your name and if it's a
complicated name, we may ask you to spell it.
That's about it.
Are there any questions?
MS. CATALFAMO: Orange, New Jersey.
That diagram, does that refer to
8 Watchung Avenue at all?
9 MR. PRINCE: Watchung is-- let me put up
10 this one because it may make a little bit more
11 sense.
12 {Pause.)
13 This is Watchung here (indicating) and
14 that other figure is a blowup of--
15 MS. CATALFAMO: We're right behind Alden
16 Street.
17 MR. PRINCE: You're up near this corner
18 { indicating)?
19 MS. CATALFAMO: Yes, we're in more where
20 Spanky's is.
21 MR. PRINCE: That's right on the corner,
22 right. The facility is actually at the corner of
23 High and Alden Streets. It's about two acres.
24 DR. FELLMAN: Point out what the back
25 figure is showing.
-------
18
MR. PRINCE: Yes, it's this right here
(indicating . )
MS. CATALFAMO: I'm talking about the
other diagram you have there.
MR. PRINCE: This is a blowup of this
area right here (indicating.)
MS. CATALFAMO: Okay. That's what I
8 wanted to know.
9 Also, I think you're wrong about the
10 date of the first meeting. I don't think it was in
11 '93. I think it was before that. It was before
12 because, I remember, when we came to the first
13 meeting, you told us that it would be in a few
14 years, the cleanup, in '95, and here it is '95 and
15 nothing has been done.
16 MR. PRINCE: EPA's studies of all of
17 these properties-- we have done over 300 properties
18 investigations so far-- began in 1991. We had some
19 meetings back in 1991 to tell people who we were
20 going to be in the community and the sort of work
21 that we were going to be doing.
22 MS. CATALFAMO: You said within a
23 four-year period this would have been resolved.
24 MS. JANICE CHAM: Orange, New Jersey.
25 I would like to know a little bit about
-------
19
Operable Unit 2 because you're noc talking about
that and I think that I'm in that area and that
area is from Alden to probably Washington.
MR. PRINCE: This is Washington over
here (indicating), that's actually Operable Unit 1.
MS. CHAM: You don't have it depicted on
either one of those-- on that blowup really. I'd
like to know why.
MR. PRINCE: I may not have been clear.
10 There is two separates pieces. For the first piece,
11 which is Operable Unit 1 and includes a number of
12 residential properties in this area, not the plant,
13 we have already selected a remedy, we already have
14 the design process going on, and those properties--
15 the work on those properties, which will involve
16 excavation, off-site disposal of that material,
17 excavation of the property, are in the process, and
18 the first group of those properties is what we
19 expect to actually start working on, the
20 construction work, next spring. That group is
21 actually 18 properties.
22 MS. CHAM: That includes this area that
23 I'm talking about?
24 MR. PRINCE: It includes particular
25 properties in that area.
-------
20
MS. DENICE JONES: Orange, New Jersey.
I live right in back of the radiation
plant. I want to know, who is going to be held
responsible for long-term or acute health problems
of my family and for how long in the future is this
person or whatever going to be responsible?
DR. FELLMAN: I think the first part of
8 the question is, who's responsible? The responsible
9 party is the U.S. Radium Corporation who ceased
10 activities here in 1926.
11 So, unfortunately there is no person
12 responsible who you can interact with in 1995. A
13 lot of the Superfund problems are inactive sites.
14 The person or company that is responsible for
15 creating the hazardous condition is no longer with
16 us and in many cases such as this one, it's been 70
17 or so years since they have been here.
18 As far as health effects, what we're
19 talking about, as John touched on, is an increased
20 risk of cancer when one is exposed to a carcinogen.
21 It would be similar to the risk to a cigarette
22 smoker, in that, number one, not everyone who
23 smokes cigarettes gets cancer or any other
24 tobacco-related illness.. The more one smokes, the
25 greater the risk. Then again you may have a
-------
21
three-pack smoker who lives to be a hundred and
never gets cancer.
It's not something that you can point a
finger at and say, if this individual is exposed to
this amount of radiation for this period, then we
can say with any degree of certainty that there is
going to be a radiation-caused cancer down the
8 road, 10, 20, 30 years later, for that individual.
9 • All we can say is, in a broad sense,
10 looking at a population, as opposed to an
11 individual, that if a group of people are exposed
12 to elevated levels of radiation for a long period
13 of time, then in that group we may expect to see a
14 greater number of cancers than we would have had
15 they not been exposed to radiation.
16 Just like in a group of cigarette
17 smokers, over a long period of time we would expect
18 to see greater numbers of tobacco-related illness,
19 such as lung cancer and heart disease, than we
20 would have had that group not been exposed to that
21 hazardous agent.
22 So, having said that, what we're left
23 with here is levels of radiation that are elevated
24 above background, natural background. We know what
25 natural background levels are and we see definite
-------
22
increases when we are studying over the U.S. Radium
waste piles.
On the other hand, the fact that these
elevated levels exist does not necessarily mean
that the people who are either living near them, as
you are, or working in and around them, as we have
for the past several years, are not getting such an
8 enormous radiation exposure that we're necessarily
9 going to see any health effects.
10 What this is all about is being
11 prudent. It's about an increased risk, albeit a
12 small risk. You are still talking risk estimates
13 that would predict a handful of cases to thousands
14 of people.
15 So, certainly no real certainty that
16 there would be any cancers caused by this, but a
17 possibility based on our knowledge of how radiation
18 works and what the carcinogenic-- the magnitude of
19 the carcinogenic effects based on studies of people
20 like the survivors from Japan who were exposed to
21 radiation when the atomic bomb went off, and other
22 groups that have been studied over the years.
23 So, again it's more of a low risk, but
24 it's a-- we know it's there, we know this is a
25 carcinogen, and so the prudent thing to do is to
-------
23
find it and remove it.
MS. JONES: With all due respect, that's
not an acceptable answer to me. I appreciate the
information that you're offering. The reason it's
not acceptable to me, in your line of work you
choose to do your line of work.
DR. FELLMAN: That's true.
8 MS. JONES: If a person chooses to smoke
9 cigarettes, that's their choice.
10 DR. FELLMAN: That's true.
11 M
-------
24
what I was moving into and I have my family
smack-dab in the middle of something that was not
my choice.
If I had been informed of the situation
beforehand, someone had given me the choice, I
would not have moved there. I feel very angry
because the choice was taken away from me. My
8 family-- I feel horrible that my family is in this
9 situation. I have very small children and I j.ust
10 feel that someone has to.be responsible for that.
11 I'm not saying that you are, but someone has to be
12 responsible. Someone should have informed me before
13 I moved to where I'm living.
14 DR. FELLMAN: I take it you're a tenant.
15 MS. JONES: I'm a tenant. Someone should
16 have informed me, before I moved to this area right
17 smack in the backyard of this, of what the
18 situation was.
19 This is where my anger comes in: I'm
20 the last person in the world who would have put
21 myself in that situation. I've always been very
22 careful with my family and their health. I'm not
23 blaming anyone here. But I have to vent how I feel.
24 DR. FELLMAN: Understood.
25 MR. PRINCE: Other questions, please?
-------
25
MR. CAREY GAGE, Orange, New Jersey.
What properties exactly are_in Operable
Unit 2? You have the plan site and you said four or
f ive- -
MR. PRINCE: Four other properties.
MR. GAGE: What are the addresses?
MR. PRINCE: I have the addresses with
8 me and actually I didn't have your telephone number
9 so I couldn't call you back. I can provide you the
10 information that you requested.
11 The reason we don't generally make
12 public the addresses that are associated with
13 particular properties is that, while the
14 information is public information, because the EPA,
15 the government, is paying for this work and
16 therefore it's the work of the people and it's
17 public information, we try and keep a level of
18 privacy to the degree that we can.
19 So, we don't talk about individual
20 properties, we don't refer to so and so's house. We
21 just try and have that level of separation.
22 So, I know the information you would
23 like and I have it. I can provide it for you.
24 MS. CHAM: What's going to happen to the
25 people who have to have on-site excavation, or
-------
2S
whatever, and the people around them? Are you
telling those neighbors-- I mean should they not
know about this? If it's one individual house, what
about the people around them? They should not know
about it?
MR. PRINCE: Well, we'll need to speak
to them, depending on the level of work that has to
8 take place at their particular property.
9 This is a question about the first
10 operable unit again. It's generally a question
il about one or a group of these residences that is
12 not the subject of this particular meeting, but
13 that doesn't mean it's not a legitimate question.
14 In general we're finding that we don't
15 find clusters of properties. We are often finding
16 just one property out here somewhere (indicating),
17 where this material, sometime back in the '20s, was
18 brought. We don't know how. It's clearly material
19 that is associated with this plant, but how it got
20 there, we don't know.
21 Be that as it may, it's part of the
22 cleanup work. We speak with the individual
23 homeowner. In some cases, depending on the extent
24 of the contamination, and more the type of work
25 that has to take place, we do need to relocate
-------
27
certain homeowners, which is also part of the
restoration program.
It's paid for through the cleanup work
and, depending on the nature of the work, we may be
working in front of that house or around that
particular house for several days, several weeks,
possibly-- generally several weeks. And, in that
8 case, obviously we need to make everyone in the
9 area understand why we're in and what we're doing
10 and contact them and explain our concerns.
11 MR. MORRISON: You have said you have
12 gone house-to-house and anybody who lets you, you
13 went in and examined for radon.
14 MR. PRINCE: Radium, yes.
15 MR. MORRISON: Radium. People who
16 wouldn't let you in, you could not examine,
17 correct?
18 MR. PRINCE: That is true.
19 MR. MORRISON: So, anybody who is there,
20 you would have contacted.
21 MR. PRINCE: Right.
22 MR. MORRISON: So, if someone has a
23 particular problem, you've already contacted the
24 neighbors in the ways that you can already.
25 MR. PRINCE: Well, we don't stop there.
-------
23
MR. MORRISON: At least you are going
through that initial situation.
MR. PRINCE: Sure. You actually bring up
a point that is worth my mentioning. There are 330
properties here and then there are about 50
6 properties that are sort of scattered about. That's
7 380 properties. We have been to 300 or so, a little
8 more than 300 or so of those. There are about 80
9 that, for one reason or another, we haven't been to
10 yet. In some case it's because people have said,
11 no, no, *e can't be bothered.
12 DR. FELLMAN: In most cases. There are
13 some properties that are abandoned and we can't
14 find the owner. In general it's because people
15 don't understand or we maybe haven't done our job
16 of communicating what we're doing yet.
17 So, that work is ongoing. We're still
18 trying to get into those remaining 80 homes to find
19 out, well, is there a problem? The good news is, if
20 we do find something for these 380 properties, not
21 associated with this plant and not those four
22 commercial properties, we have a remedy at home for
23 that so we can start that work relatively quickly.
24 MS. SEPPI: Any other questions? If
25 anyone has a question about their own property, if
-------
29
1 they would prefer to stay after to talk to us more,
2 that's fine and we would be glad to stay and answer
3 your questions.
4 If that's all the questions for now,
5 thank you very much for coming. If anyone didn't
6 get the handout, there are some up here
7 Thank you.
8 (Whereupon, the hearing is concluded at
9 7:47 p.m.)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
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
CERTIFICATE
I, JOANNE M. OPPERMANN, a Certified
Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public of the
State of New Jersey, do hereby state that the
foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of
my stenographic notes of the within
proceedings, to the best of my ability.
JOANNE M. OPPERMANN
LICENSE NO. X1435
-------
U.S. Radium Corporation site
Responsiveness Summary
Second Operable Unit
Appendix D: Administrative Record Index
-------
U.S. RADIUM CORPORATION SITE
OPERABLE UNIT TWO
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
1.5 Previous Operable Unit Information
P. 100001 - Memo to administrative record file, from Mr. John
100028 Prince, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA, Region
II, re: Incorporation by reference of documents
that are included in the administrative record for
the first operable unit (OU1) of the site and are
also part of the OU2 administrative record, May
12, 1995. (Attached: QU2 Administrative Record
Documents (In OUl Administrative Record), Index
Chronological Order, U.S. Radium Corporation
Documents, October 18, 1993.)
3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
3.4 Remedial investigation Reports
P. 300001 - Report: Draft Final Remedial
300361 Investigation/Feasibility Study Report. Volume I.
Operable Unit Two. U.S. Radium Corporation.
prepared by Malcolm Pirnie Inc., prepared for U.S.
EPA, May 1995.
P. 300362 - Report: Draft Final Remedial
300455 Investigation/Feasibility Study Report. Volume II.
Appendices. Operable Unit Two. U.S. Radium
Corporation, prepared by Malcolm Pirnie Inc.,
prepared for U.S. EPA, May 1995.
p. 300456 - "Abstract of Offers - Construction, Montclair/West
300463 Orange & Glen Ridge Radium Sites, Property
Remediation & Restoration; Phase IIA, Essex
County, New Jersey", prepared by Ms. Susan Meites,
Bid Opening Officer, U.S. EPA, September 14, 1992.
-------
6.0 STATE COORDINATION
6.2 State Certification of Applicable or .Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements
P. 600001 - Memo to administrative record file, from Mr. John
600025 Prince, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA, Region
II, re: U.S. Radium Corporation Superfund Site -
Second Operable Unit - Administrative Record
Confidential Document, May 12, 1995. (Attached:
"Objective: To Establish Statewide Cleanup
Standards for Radioactive Materials Consistent
with the Direction in S-1070 and the Radiation
Protection Act", prepared by the Bureau of
Environmental Radiation, undated. Note: This
document is CONFIDENTIAL. It is located in the
U.S. EPA Superfund Records Center, 18th floor, 290
Broadway, New York, New York, 10007-1866.)
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.6 Fact Sheets and Press Releases
P. 1000001 - "A Citizen's Guide to Radon (Second Edition), The
1000016 Guide to Protecting Yourself and Your Family from
Radon11, prepared by U.S. EPA, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, and Centers for Disease
Control, May 1992.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name :
Location/State :
EPA Region :
HRS Score (date):
Site ID #
ROD
Date Signed:
Remedy:
Operable Unit Number:
Capital Cost:
Construction Completion:
O & M:
Present Worth:
LEAD
Primary contact:
Secondary contact:
Main PRP:
PRP Contact:
WASTE
Type:
Medium:
Origin:
Est. quantity:
U.S. Radium Corporation
Essex County, New Jersey
II
37.79 (8/12/83)
NJD980654172
August 29, 1995
Excavation and off-site disposal of
radium-contaminated material
OU-2
$ 22 Million in 1995 dollars
Two years
None
$ 22 Million
Remedial/EPA
John Prince (212)-637-4382
Robert McKnight (212)-637-4378
Safety Light Corporation
N/A
Radium and other radionuclides
Soil, miscellaneous
Radium-ore tailings
18,000 cu.yd.
------- |