United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-88/064
September 1988
£EPA Superfund
Record of Decision
Marathon Battery, NY
-------
50273-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/RO2-88/064
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
-------
f
Se
A/ROD/R02-88/064
rathon Battery, NY
econd Remedial Action
16. ABSTRACT (continued)
Approximately 5,000 yd-^ of cadmium-contaminated sediments were dredged and
subsequently placed in a clay-lined underground vault on the plant property. However,
studies conducted in Foundry Cove between 1976 to 1980 continued to detect cadmium and
nickel concentrations in excess of 900 mg/kg. To expedite remediation, the site has
been divided into three separate geographic areas as follows: Area I, EFCM and
Constitution Marsh southeast of the plant; Area II, the 11-acre former battery plant
grounds, including the former battery manufacturing facility (presently used as a book
repository), a production well, a 500,000 gallon water tower, building debris, a dredge
spoils vault, a parking lot, and nearby residential yards; and Area III, EFC and the
portion of the Hudson River in the vicinity of the wastewater discharge pipe on Cold
Spring pier. A ROD was signed for Area I in September 1986 with cleanup activities to
include dredging the EFCM and replacing the sediments with clay and clean fill. This
ROD addresses Area II including localized soil contamination primarily in the area
around the building, under debris, and around the parking lot; dust inside the building;
and the sludge spoils vault. A subsequent ROD will address Area III. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground water, soil, debris, and inside surfaces of
a building in Area II are: VOCs including PCE and TCE, and metals including cadmium and
nickel.
The selected remedial action for Area II at this site includes: decontamination of
•he inside surfaces and contents of the former battery facility to remove the heavy
metal-contaminated dust; excavation of both the cadmium-contaminated soil on the battery
plant grounds and nearby residential yards, and the dred.ge spoils vault, followed by
onsite fixation of the excavated soil, dust, and vault sediments and offsite disposal;
excavation of the VOC-contaminated soil hotspots followed by enhanced volatilization and
replacement of the clean residuals onsite; backfilling of the excavation areas with
clean fill; institutional controls; ground water monitoring; and evaluation and
performance of minor repairs, if needed, to the inoperable sprinkler and heating systems
inside the former battery facility. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial
action is $10,010,000, with annual O&M of $775,000 (year 1) and $17,000 (years 2-30).
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Marathon Battery Company, Cold Spring, Putnam County, New York.
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND BASIS
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
Area II of the Marathon Battery Company site (Site). The
selected remedial alternative was developed in accordance with
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA), 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq.. and to
the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 C.F.R. Part 300, November
20, 1985.
The attached index identifies the documents that comprise the
Administrative Record for Area II. The documents in the attached
Responsiveness Summary and the Administrative Record are the
basis for the selected remedial action.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The major components of the selected remedy can be summarized as
follows:
- Decontamination of the inside surfaces and contents of
the former battery facility to remove the heavy metal-
contaminated dust.
- Excavation of the cadmium-contaminated soil to a level of 20
mg/kg on the battery plant grounds and the residential yards
impacted by the Site.
- Excavation of the on-site dredge spoils vault.
- Fixation of the excavated soil, dust, and vault sediments.
- Off-site disposal of the cadmium-contaminated soils, sediments,
and dust at a facility to be arranged for by NYSDEC.
- Excavation of the volatile organic-contaminated soil hotspots
followed by enhanced volatilization and replacement of the
clean residuals on-site.
- Backfilling of the excavated areas with clean fill.
-------
- Institutional controls to restrict development of the aquifer
for potable or municipal use, until State or Federal applicable
or relevant and appropriate requirements are reached.
- Long-term monitoring of the groundwater underlying the Site.
- Evaluation and performance of minor repairs, if needed, to the
inoperable sprinkler and heating systems inside the former
battery facility.
DECLARATION
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan,
40 C.F.R. Part 300, I have determined that the selected, remedy is
protective of human health and the environment, attains Federal
and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and
appropriate to this remedial action, and is cost-effective.
Furthermore, this remedy satisfies the preference for treatment
that reduces mobility, toxicity, or volume as a principal
element. Finally, I have determined that this remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternate treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable.
Because this remedy will not result in hazardous substances
remaining on-site above health-based levels, the five year
review will not apply after completion of the remedial action.
The State ,of New York is in agreement with the selected
alternatives but does not concur on the cadmium cleanup level
recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA
employed the cleanup level of 20 mg/kg recommended by the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Based on the
recommendations of ATSDR, EPA believes that the 20 mg/kg level is
fully protective for both residential and industrial areas.
However, New York State believes that 20 mg/kg is unacceptable
and is developing lower cleanup criteria yet to be formally
provided to EPA. In recognition of these concerns, EPA will
review future documentation from the State, and reconsider the
recommended cadmium cleanup level in residential areas.
William J. Jrfufiz^n^i, P.E. Date
Acting Regional Administrator
-------
ROD DECISION SUMMARY
MARATHON BATTERY COMPANY SITE - AREA II
COLD SPRING, PUTNAM COUNTY, NEW YORK
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
NEW YORK
-------
Record of Decision
Marathon Battery Company Site
New York
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Site Location
The Marathon Battery Company site (Site) is situated in the
Village of Cold Spring in Putnam County, New York. It is across
the Hudson River and slightly north of the United States Military
Academy at West Point, and approximately 40 miles north of New
York City. The Site is located within the incorporated
boundaries of Philipstown (Figure 1).
Site Description
The Site is comprised of three study areas: Area I, which
consists of East Foundry Cove Marsh and Constitution Marsh; Area
II, which encompasses the former battery plant, presently
serving as a book repository, the surrounding grounds, and a
vault with cadmium-contaminated sediments dredged from East
Foundry Cove in the 1970s; and Area III, which includes East
Foundry Cove, and the Hudson River in the vicinity of the Cold
Spring pier (Figure 2).
This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses the Area II portion of
the Site.
The former battery plant grounds are approximately 11 acres in
size, and are generally flat to slightly rolling. The most
prominent features of the property are the former battery
manufacturing facility of approximately 114,000 square feet, a
Butler building of approximately 2,500 square feet, a production
well, and a 500,000 gallon water tower. In addition, the
property is littered with building debris from renovations of the
main building, and with wooden pallets from the operation of the
book repository. Approximately 30% to 40% of the interior space
of the former battery plant is occupied with books inside and
outside of packing boxes. Some of these books are wrapped in
shrinkwrap plastic and appear to be relatively clean while others
are heavily coated with dust.
The dredge spoils vault is fenced and encompasses 15,000 square
feet with the cap being 3 to 4 feet below grade. The surface of
the vault is covered with dense vegetation and several trees
approximately 15 to 20 feet in height. The vault contains
approximately 5,000 cubic yards of sediment with concentrations
ranging from 1000 mg/kg to 3000 mg/kg.
-------
-2-
Houses along Constitution Drive directly behind the former
battery plant are located approximately 15 feet above the
northern portion of the former battery plant grounds.
Ground surface elevations on-site range from a low of 27 feet
above mean sea level in the northwest portion of the Site to a
height of 45 feet above mean sea level in the southwest portion
of the Site. There is approximately a 20 foot drop in elevation
in the southeast fence line of the Site, trending south towards
East Foundry Cove. Such a surface topography is common to areas
of glacial deposits.
The overall groundwater flow at the Site is to the southeast,
towards East Foundry Cove. In the west corner of the Site where
the bedrock is situated 2.5 feet below the ground surface,
groundwater is non-existent. Based on the hydraulic parameters
generated, it is concluded that the aquifer under the Site is
highly transmissive. The aquifer is not presently used as source
of drinking water; the area residents receive their water from
municipal water supplies.
Site History and Enforcement Activities
The source of contaminants found throughout Area II is the
former nickel-cadmium battery manufacturing plant located on
Kemble Avenue in the Village of Cold Spring (Figure 3).
The facility was designed and constructed in 1952 by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) for the U.S. Army Signal Corps.
Initial operation of the facilty was contracted by the Signal
Corps to Sonotone Corporation (Sonotone). The first batteries
manufactured were used in the NIKE Missile Program. In 1957, the
facility began production of aircraft batteries for military jet
fighters.
In September 1962, Sonotone Corporation purchased the plant and
its equipment from the United States. In 1963, thirty-five
thousand square feet of production area were added and production
of nickel-cadmium batteries for commercial customers was
initiated.
-------
-3-
In December 1967, Sonotone became a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Clevite, Incorporated (Clevite) which operated the facility for
slightly over 18 months. In July 1969, Clevite merged with
Gould, Incorporated (Gould); however, Gould was required to
divest itself of the plant due to its ownership of other battery
facilities. As a result, the plant appears to have been operated
by Gould for only one week.
In July 1969, the plant was sold to Business Funds, Incor-
porated, which subsequently changed its name to Marathon Battery
Company. Production increased to near capacity, and expansion of
the assembly operations was undertaken in the company's plant in
Waco, Texas. Eventually, all operations were transferred to the
Texas plant. The last manufacturing operations performed in the
Village of Cold Spring were during March 1979.
The facility, with the equipment removed, was purchased in
November 1980 by Merchandise Dynamics, Incorporated (Merchandise
Dynamics) for use as a book storage and distribution facility.
Merchandise Dynamics has filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
On September 22, 1970, a complaint was filed (70 Civ. 4110) in
the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, by the
United States against Marathon Battery Company et al for
violation of Sections 407, 413, and 441 of Title 33 of the
United States Code (Refuse Act). The complaint sought
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, enjoining and
restraining the "discharge or deposit of any alkali, or any salt
of nickel, cadmium or cobalt...directly or indirectly into
Foundry Cove or the Hudson River" and ordered Marathon Battery
Company and the other defendants to remove the "deposited salts,
and any other refuse or debris deposited in Foundry Cove."
A Final Judgment was filed in 1972, which required Marathon
Battery Company, Sonotone, Clevite, and Gould to remove
contaminated sediments to a concentration of 900 milligrams per
kilogram (mg/kg) from the outfall area adjacent to the discharge
pipe, the channel leading to the main body of Foundry Cove, and a
portion of Foundry Cove. Marathon Battery Company, Sonotone,
Clevite, and Gould, participated in the limited cleanup of
Foundry Cove.
-------
-4-
In response to a report filed with the Court on the dredging by
the defendants, the United States filed a Satisfaction of
Judgment, stating that "the defendants...are deemed to have
complied with the terms of the Final Judgment, as amended, with
respect to the removal of the deposits of cadmium from Foundry
Cove and are relieved from any further obligation with respect
thereto."
The Army was not named as a co-defendant in the United States'
suit. Marathon Battery Company, Sonotone, Clevite, and Gould
alleged that the Army had participated in damaging Foundry Cove
by engineering and approving the plant design and by con-
sructing the plant.
Between November 1972 and July 1973, dredging was conducted. The
dredged sediments were mixed with 0.5% limestone and were buried
in an asphalt and clay-lined underground vault on the plant
property. A fence was placed around the vault. The surface of
the vault was to be maintained in perpetuity by the property
owner and monitoring was to be conducted by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).
Studies conducted from 1976 to 1980 by NYSDEC, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and New York University
indicated, however, the East Foundry Cove was still contaminated,
much of it at concentrations greater than 900 mg/kg.
In 1981, this area was designated as a Superfund site.
Subsequently, in September 1983, it was designated a state-lead
Superfund site upon signing of a cooperative agreement between
NYSDEC and EPA.
In 1983, in response to an informal complaint regarding possible
employee illnesses associated with cadmium exposure, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) took air
samples during routine and maintenance work in the warehouse.
These data showed exposure levels of cadmium, lead, and nickel to
be below OSHA's permissible exposure limits. Based upon these
sample results, OSHA concluded that, although there was evidence
of heavy metal-contaminated dust in the facility, the only
potential exposure was to workers involved in maintenance
operations. OSHA advised that these employees should wear
respiratory equipment while performing dust-producing activities.
-------
-5-
In 1984, in order to investigate the feasibility of remediating
the Site, NYSDEC contracted with Acres International Corporation
(Acres) of Buffalo, New York, to perform a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS). Area II sampling
efforts in the summer of 1985 identified contamination in the
dust inside the building at concentrations as high as 120,000
mg/kg and 130,000 mg/kg, respectively.
In August 1985, a draft RI/FS report was prepared by Acres.
Because the FS contained insufficient information to evaluate
effectively the effects of remedial alternatives under con-
sideration, the USAGE was tasked to expand upon the study by
further evaluating the technically feasible means of remediating
Foundry Cove and Constitution Marsh. The USAGE completed this
technical assistance in February 1986.
In March 1986, following a contractual dispute with its con-
tractor, NYSDEC requested that EPA assume the lead respon-
sibility for the project.
In April 1986, Ebasco Services, Incorporated (Ebasco) initiated a
supplemental RI for Area I. In September 1986, a ROD was signed
by EPA, calling for the remediation of East Foundry Cove Marsh
and "no action" for Constitution Marsh.
An analysis of the sampling data from the former battery facility
by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
in late June 1986 led to the recommendation that the facility be
closed immediately to all personnel not in personal protective
equipment, until the cadmium levels were below occupational
standards and guidelines. On July 3, 1986, EPA advised OSHA of
the levels of cadmium detected in the warehouse, referring the
project for immediate action.
Because of the proximity of the local residences to the former
battery facility, on July 9-10, 1986, the EPA Technical
Assistance Team (TAT) collected twenty-two discrete soil surface
samples from the yards of residences on Constitution Avenue and
the Boulevard (Figure 4). TAT inspected the warehouse and took
soil and air samples around the perimeter of the facility.
Results from this investigation showed no detectable levels of
cadmium in the air, and concentrations ranging to 600 mg/kg in
the soil on the plant grounds.
In July 1986, OSHA performed an investigation of the warehouse.
Air and wipe samples were collected. Results from the air
sampling showed levels of cadmium in the employees' breathing
zone to be below OSHA's occupational exposure criteria.
-------
-6-
in February 1988, EPA conducted an investigation of the sprinkler
system within the battery facility in response to notification by
the Cold Spring fire department that the system was inoperable.
EPA, concerned that a fire could result in a release of
contaminated dust into the environment, inspected the facility
and verified that the sprinkler system was inoperable.
EPA intends to proceed under CERCLA against the Potentially
Responsible Partj.es (PRPs) . Consequently, notice letters were
sent to USAGE, Marathon Battery Company, Gould, Sonotone, and
Clevite, as well as Merchandise Dynamics, the current property
owner.
Marathon Battery Company, Gould, and the USAGE have cooperated in
supplying information and meeting with the Agency to comment on
the proposed remedial alternative.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY
The governmental effort to ensure significant community
involvement in Cold Spring has been extensive. A comprehensive
public relations strategy was developed by EPA to keep concerned
parties cognizant of CERCLA activities at the Site. The EPA has
a public information repository in Cold Spring. The public is
also kept informed through public meetings.
A public meeting was held on June 13, 1988 to discuss the
preferred alternative for the Area II portion of the Site. A
more detailed discussion of the outcome of this public meeting
can be found in the Responsiveness Summary.
The Supplemental RI/FS and the Proposed Remedial Action Plan
(PRAP) were released for public comment on May 27, 1988. After
submittal of the PRAP to the public, a number of issues of
concern were raised by NYSDEC and the public. In particular, EPA
reassessed the No-Action alternative for the vault and the
proposed cleanup level of 50 mg/kg for the on-site cadmium-
contaminated soil.
The Responsiveness Summary addresses questions and concerns
raised by interested parties during the public comment period.
-------
-7-
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
As indicated previously, the Site has been divided into three
areas, addressed as separate operable units. A ROD for the
Area I portion was signed in September 1986, and the design is
currently underway. This ROD deals with the second operable
unit which encompasses the former battery plant, the dredge
spoils vault, the surrounding grounds, and nearby residential
yards.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The RI/FS was prepared by EPA's contractor, Ebasco in April
1988. Five different media were sampled during the RI:
surface soils; subsurface soils; groundwater; and dust and
concrete borings from the former battery plant. All media were
found to be contaminated by the activities performed at the
plant.
Soil Investigation
Sixty-six surface and subsurface soil samples were collected
from the former battery plant grounds and analyzed for full
hazardous substance list (HSL) compound concentrations. On-
site soils were found to be contaminated with heavy metals,
volatile organic compounds, base/neutral extractable compounds,
and pesticides. Tables 1 and 2 list the concentrations of
inorganic and organic compounds detected in soils Figure 5
shows the locations of the contaminated soil on the plant
grounds. Table 3 summarizes average United States soil
concentrations found at this site. All compounds that were
found to exceed background level and criteria are noted.
Cadmium concentrations ranged from 0-34,700 mg/kg, with a mean
of 685 mg/kg. Nickel was found in concentrations of 0-36,300
mg/kg, with a mean of 674 mg/kg, and cobalt was found at 0-1800
mg/kg, with a mean of 35.2 mg/kg*. In general, the
concentration distribution patterns of these three metals are
very similar. Levels of metal contamination decrease with
distance from the former battery plant and with depth from
ground surface. Metal contamination is limited to the upper
60-90 cm (2-3 feet) of site soils. The sources of this
contamination are believed to be air emissions from former
ventilation units and contaminated debris which was removed
from the building and still litters the Site.
Soil metal concentrations reported in the RI include samples
taken previous to the RI by NYSDEC's, contractor Acres. This
-------
-8-
In summary, heavy metal-contaminated soils on the former battery
plant grounds occur primarily in the area around the building or
under debris from the demolition. Since no contaminant-specific
promulgated applicable or relevant and appropriate federal and
state requirements (ARARS) exist for heavy metals, other criteria
were evaluated to determine the level of cleanup of contamination
at the Site.
Hazard substance list (HSL) compounds were found in both surface
and subsurface soils on the former battery plant grounds. The
majority of compounds found were polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) ranging in concentration from 0 to 9.2 mg/kg. Soil
contamination by PAHs appears to be related to surface runoff
from the asphalt-parking lot.
Volatile organic compounds were also detected in the soil on the
former battery plant grounds. Trichloroethylene was found at one
location, 12-14 feet below ground level, at concentrations of 13
to 30 ug/kg. Trichloroethylene was detected at another location
at 37 ug/kg, 35 to 37 feet below ground level in the saturated
soil. Tetrachloroethylene was detected in soils at three
locations, 12 to 14 feet below the ground surface, at a
concentration of 15 ug/kg and in the surface (0-6") at 2.3 and
2.2 ug/kg. Other volatile organic compounds detected include
toluene at 21,000 ug/kg, xylene at 410 ug/kg, ethylbenzene at 150
ug/kg and chloroform at 120 ug/kg.
Several pesticide and pesticide breakdown products were found in
the soil samples. Chlordane was found in surface soil (0-6") at
8,900 ug/kg. 4,4'-DDT was found at concentrations of 6.4, 3.2,
and 24 ug/kg, while its breakdown product DDE and Dieldrin were
found at concentrations of 10 ug/kg and 3.1 ug/kg, respectively.
Beta BHC was detected at 260 ug/kg, endosulfan sulfate was
detected at a concentration of 12 ug/kg, and heptachlor epoxide
was detected at 6.9 ug/kg.
In general, soil contamination is localized in areas near the
former battery plant building and the parking lot.
-------
-9-
Groundwater Contamination
During the RI, 17 groundwater samples were collected for HSL
volatile organic contaminant analysis (Table 4). Nine of the
groundwater samples indicated TCE contamination with
concentrations ranging from 2 ug/1 to 100 ug/1. The most
upgradient well had the highest TCE concentrations, ranging from
82 to 100 ug/1. 1,1-trichloroethane in this well ranges from 8 to
18 ug/1. The most downgradient well had a TCE concentration of
26 ug/1 and 1,1,1-trichloroethane at 5.5 ug/1. Wells located
approximately at the mid-point between the upgradient and
downgradient wells have TCE concentrations of 6, 8 and 65 ug/1,
and 1,1,1-trichlproethane concentrations of 2, 0 and 9 ug/1.
These five monitoring wells are situated in a line with
groundwater flow direction (i.e., southeast; see site
description). This may indicate a volatile organic contaminant
plume present in the groundwater, with the contaminant source
near the upgradient well. This assumption is supported by the
TCE- and tetrachloroethane-contaminated soil samples collected at
this monitoring well location. 1,2-dichloroethane was detected
at concentrations of 15 ug/1 during the pump test. 1,2-
dichloroethane was not detected in groundwater samples collected
from the other monitoring wells.
Building Contamination
During the RI, representative dust samples were taken from 19
locations of the building surfaces (i.e., walls, ceilings,
floors, etc.) and from six locations on the stacked book surfaces
(i.e., plastic covers, boxes, etc.) (Table 5).
Dust samples were analyzed for cadmium, cobalt and nickel. The
concentrations of these metals in building dust are shown in
Table 5. Cadmium concentrations in building dust ranged from 24-
15,300 mg/kg with a mean of 5946 mg/kg. Cobalt concentrations
ranged from 1.2-462 mg/kg, with a mean of 33.26 mg/kg, while
nickel dust concentrations ranged from 36 to 21,500 mg/kg, with a
mean of 6771 mg/kg*.
The estimated surface areas of the building and the stacked
books are 239,000 ft2 and 322,000 ft2 respectively. Assuming
that the thickness of the dust on the surfaces is 1/16 inch, the
total dust volume from both the building surfaces and the stacked
books surfaces is 110 yd3.
Cadmium, cobalt and nickel analyses were performed on concrete
borings. In seven samples, no cadmium was found in the concrete;
cobalt concentrations ranged from 7.1 to 66 mg/kg, and nickel
concentrations ranged from 20 to 200 mg/kg.
Building dust metal conentrations reported in the RI include
samples taken previous to the RI by NYSDEC's contractor ACRES.
-------
-10-
Intearity of the Spoils Vault
Approximately 5000 cubic yards of sediment were deposited in an
underground vault located on the former battery plant grounds in
1972 (Figure 3). These sediments have a cadmium concentration
ranging from 1000 mg/kg to 3000 mg/kg. Five monitoring wells
were installed around the perimeter of the dredge spoils vault,
and subsurface soils and groundwater were analyzed to determine
whether the cadmium, cobalt and nickel contaminated sediments had
leaked from the vault. The results of these analyses showed that
contaminated sediments have not migrated from the vault (Table
4). None of the groundwater samples or subsurface soils
collected from the vault wells produced any cadmium, cobalt, or
nickel.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
The following evaluation is consistent with EPA Superfund Public
Health Evaluation Manual, dated October 1986.
The chemical parameters presented in Tables 1 and 2 which were
found to exceed health and environmentally based values were
candidate indicator parameters. Several compounds were
eliminated based on low concentrations present in soil, limited
available toxicity data for health risk assessment, or low
potential for exposure.
Many base/neutral polycyclic aromatic hydrcarbons (PAHs) were
detected in the surface soils of the former battery plant
grounds. These PAHs were detected in 28 of the 66 soil samples
collected during the investigation. The PAHs which were
detected during the sampling effort are generally mid to high
molecular weight PAHs, indicative of asphalt or coal tar. Benzo
(a) Pyrene (B(a)P) was detected in 12 of 66 total soil samples,
ranging from 0.096 to 6.5 mg/kg. These B(a)P concentrations
fall within normal background concentrations. Based on previous
studies, it has been shown that asphalt can contain between 1.0
and 69 mg/kg of total B(a)P, some of which can be transported to
soils near roadways and parking lots. It appears that the
levels of B(a)P and other PAHs found in the soils of the
Marathon Battery Company site are indicative of normal background
contamination not requiring remediation.
The pesticides detected in the soil samples included chlordane
and breakdown products of 4-4' DDT, lindane and heptachlor.
These pesticides and their breakdown products were detected in 11
of the 66 collected soil samples and generally ranged between 1.6
and 260 ug/kg, with chlordane being found in one sample at 8900
ug/kg near the fence lines. Since chlordane was only found in
-------
-11-
one soil sample, it is believed that it represents a localized
spill unrelated to site operations and should not be considered
site-specific contamination requiring remediation. In general,
none of the pesticides detected in the soil samples were
considered to be site-specific contamination requiring
remediation and were not addressed in the public health
evaluation.
The final indicator chemicals which were subjected to the health
risk assessment are cadmium, nickel, chloroform, tricloroeth-
ylene, tetrachloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and 1,2-
dichloroethane.
Based on environmental features and surroundings, along with
possible activities and concerns of nearby residents, the
following exposure pathways were initially considered to be of
potential significance:
o Ingestion of soil/dust
o Ingestion of groundwater
o Direct contact with soil/building dust
o Inhalation of soil/building dust
o Inhalation of fumes during a fire event
o Volatilization of organics from groundwater during use
o Contamination of groundwater by dredge spoils vault
Numerical estimates of risk were calculated for the seven
indicator chemicals for each potential route of exposure, on the
basis of Acceptable Chronic Intake values and Cancer Potency
Factors (CPFs) and the human intakes estimated for each exposure
scenario. Inhalation (USEPA, 1986) of cadmium-contaminated dust
(soils) was identified as the pathway of greatest risk to nearby
residents and persons entering the property. The inhalation
model assumed that dusts were generated from the most highly
contaminated soils on-site, that 60% of inhaled cadmium was
absorbed into the lung, and that adults were exposed to an
ambient dust level typical of rural air. The model utilized the
EPA Cancer Potency Factor for cadmium of 6.1 mg/kg/d (Ebasco).
Using these assumptions, it was determined that inhalation of
cadmium exceeded the 10"^ cancer risk level by factors of 98.0
and 271 for soils and former plant dusts, respectively. Ebasco
determined that soil cadmium levels would have to be reduced to
56 ppm in order to achieve the 10~6 cancer risk level.
Although the groundwater is not currently used for drinking
water or any other potable water use, the Village of Cold Spring
has expressed interest in using this aquifer to supplement its
-------
-12-
fire hydrant supply. This fire hydrant water supply is connected
to the municipal water supply, based on design drawings from the
construction phase of the former battery plant. Therefore the
potential exists, if the aquifer is used as a water source,
residents may be exposed to contaminants.
It was assumed in the model that a person drinking water from the
aquifer consumed 2 liters per day for a lifetime, with con-
taminant concentrations at the maximum level determined in the
RI. This evaluation indicated that trichloroethylene,
chloroform, tetrachloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and 1,2
dichloroethane exceeded the 10~° cancer risk by factors of 31.4,
254, 3.5, 3.9, and 3.7, respectively.
The risk assessment also indicated that by the direct soil/dust
ingestion scenario, cadmium exceeded the maximum acceptable
intake level by a factor of 18 for workers ingesting site soils,
and by a factor of 48 for workers ingesting building dusts.
The Ebasco risk assessment determined that the cadmium-
contaminated dust would not pose a significant health risk to
firefighters or nearby residents in the event of a fire at the
former battery plant.
The EPA subsequently requested that the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluate the health risk
associated with ingestion of garden vegetables grown on cadmium-
contaminated soils. ATSDR assumed that the dietary intake of
high-and-low cadmium accumulating vegetables is, as reported in
the FDA 1981-82 total diet study (Gartrell, 1986)' that 50% of
vegetables consumed are home-grown, and that accumulation of
cadmium by vegetable classes is as reported in the literature
(Davis, 1984, and Smilde, 1982). The maximum daily dietary
intake of cadmium recommended by EPA is 70 ug/d. Using the
above assumptions, ATSDR estimated that ingestion of vegetables
grown in garden soils containing 20 mg/kg cadmium would produce a
daily dietary cadmium intake of 41-53 ug/d, and ATSDR recommended
a cadmium cleanup level for residential soils of 20 mg/kg.
-------
-13-
Dermal absorption of on-site soil and dust was found to be an
ineffective pathway since no compound exceeded the 10~6 cancer
risk or acceptable intake rates. A cancer risk less than 10~6
was found for ingestion of groundwater, and also inhalation of
fumes during a fire event.
Using the acceptable cadmium intake rate of 2.9 x 10"~4
mg/kg/day, acceptable site specific soil and dust concentrations
for the ingestion pathway are 3140 mg/kg. Based on a
carcinogenic risk of 10~° and compound-specific acceptable
intakes, acceptable soil and dust concentrations for cadmium for
the inhalation pathway are 56.3 mg/kg.
The model used for the ingestion of groundwater indicates that a
significant risk would occur if groundwater were to be used as a
drinking water supply.
Acceptable water concentrations calculated in the RI report are:
trichloroethylene, 3 ug/1; chloroform, 0 ug/1; tetrachcloroeth-
lene, 0 ug/1; 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 0 ug/1 and 1,2-
dichloroethane, 0 ug/1. It is anticipated that the groundwater
will take 3-10 years to reach these acceptable levels by means of
natural attenuation.
A complete description of the analytical methods that were used
in making these risk calculations are documented in the RI report
and supplementary memorandum which are part of the Administrative
Record.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
Based on the requirements of CERCLA Section 117(b), EPA has
determined that significant changes have been made to the
selected remedy from the time it was proposed in the PRAP until
final adoption of the remedy in the ROD.
Based upon further consideration of public comments and review of
information regarding the design specification of the vault, it
is EPA's judgment that Alternative V-3, which involves ex-
cavation of the sediments within the vault, followed by chemical
fixation and off-site disposal, would provide a better balance of
permanence than the "no-action" alternative. Although the
technical data collected in the vicinity of the vault does not
indicate that the integrity of the vault has been breached, the
levels of uncertainty associated with the useful life of the
vault lead EPA to conclude that Alternative V-3 would provide a
higher degree of protection to human health and the environment.
In addition, the proposed excavation of the vault would result in
cost savings (by avoiding remobilization activities) if EPA has
to excavate the vault at a future date.
-------
-14-
In addition, the PRAP called for excavation of the cadmium-
contaminated soils on the plant grounds to a level of 50 mg/kg.
Since excavating the cadmium-contaminated soil on the plant
grounds to a level of 50 mg/kg could potentially allow the
migration of cadmium-contaminated soils to the adjacent
residential yards (which will be remediated to 20 mg/kg), and
since the incremental cost associated with remediating the plant
ground soils to 20 mg/kg (approximately $500,000) is
insignificant compared to the overall cost of the remedy for the
Site, a remediation level of 20 mg/kg of cadmium for both the
plant grounds and adjacent residential yards is recommended.
Also, the PRAP called for the repair of the damaged sprinkler
system and heating sytem within the former battery facility to
reduce the potential for release of cadmium-contaminated dust to
the environment should a fire occur before decontamination is
complete. As an alternative approach, decontamination of the
interior building will be accelerated. The existing fire
protection system will be evaluated and minor repairs will be
made to render the system operational. The collected
contaminated dust will be placed in secure containers pending
final disposition.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Table 6 summarizes all remedial action technologies that were
considered for remediation of Area II of the Site. This table
presents the status of each technology with regard to further
consideration during development of preliminary alternatives and
brief explanations describing why technologies were eliminated.
The technologies that were considered were then combined into
preliminary remedial action alternatives. As a result of the
initial screening process, a total of three ground-water, four
dust/soil, and four dredge spoils vault remedies were developed
for detailed comparative evaluation.
-------
-15-
GROUNDWATER
Alternative GW-1; No Action (Natural Attenuation)
The "no-action" alternative for the groundwater underlying
the former battery plant grounds consists of a long-term
monitoring program. Sampling of the six existing monitoring
wells on-site, and of additional wells which will be installed
into the bedrock, monitoring will continue until health based
levels are reached by natural attenuation. The information
gathered will be used to determine whether the concentrations
of the contaminants of concern (i.e., trichloroethylene,
tetrachloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane
and chloroform) have been lowered to acceptable levels). Insti-
tional controls would restrict development of the aquifer for
potable and municipal water uses until State and Federal
ARARs are reached. Because of the hydrology of the aquifer
(highly transmissive), ARARs are expected to be achieved
within three to ten years after removal of the volatile
organic-contaminated soil.
Alternative GW-3; Pumping/Carbon Absorption/On-Site Discharge
This alternative consists of a pumping system involving four
pumping wells to remove the volatile organic-contaminated
groundwater. The contaminated groundwater would be pumped to
a carbon adsorption system which would consist of two downflow
fixed carbon beds in series. Organic contaminants would be
removed to levels equal to or below the State and Federal
ARARs specified for all drinking water supplies. The treated
water would be discharged to East Foundry Cove at a location
which would prevent resuspension or transport of sediments in
the Cove.
Alternative GU-4; Pumping/Hydrogen Peroxide-Ultraviolet
Oxidation/0n-Site
This alternative consists of a pumping system involving four
pumping wells to remove the volatile organic-contaminated
groundwater. The contaminated groundwater would be treated
by chemical oxidation with hydrogen peroxide (H202) and
ultraviolet light. A schematic diagram of this system is
shown in Figure 6. Groundwater is first mixed with a 50%
H202 solution. It then enters an oxidation chamber where the
H202 would be readily converted to hydroxyl radicals through
-------
-16-
the influence of UV light. High intensity UV light and the
concentrated hydroxyl radicals synergistically promote rapid
breakdown of organic molecules. Reduction of the volatile
organics to levels equal to or below State and Federal ARARs
for public drinking water supplies would be achieved.
CONTAMINATED SOIL AND BUILDING DUST
Alternative S-l; No Action
The "no-action" alternative for the cadmium-contaminated
soil and the dust in the former battery plant consists of a
long-term monitoring and an institutional control program.
Institutional control would restrict public access to the
plant grounds. Currently, there is an eight foot chain link
security fence with 3-strand barbed wire enclosing the entire
area. The total length of the fence is approximately 1,049 m
(3,440 ft). As added protection, warning signs would be
posted at the points of entry and at prominent locations on the
fence every 60 m (200 ft).
A long-term monitoring program would be implemented in order
to assess the migration of contaminants. Monitoring would
include sampling and testing the groundwater and soil runoff
every six months for 30 years. The groundwater sampling would
be done using the existing monitoring wells. The monitoring
program would also include an annual inspection of the facility
to verify the condition of the fence, warning signs and the
building.
Alternative S-2; Building Decontamination/Off-Site Disposal
of Dust/Soil Capping
Decontamination procedures would be used to remove the heavy
metal-contaminated dust on the inside surfaces of the building
(e.g., walls, ceilings, floors, etc.) and on the surfaces of
the stacked books. The collected dust (approximately 100 yd3)
would then be transported by truck to an off-site disposal
facility. Soil from the plant grounds and nearby residential
yards contaminated with cadmium at a concentration greater than
20 mg/kg would be compacted, graded and capped with macadam.
The estimated total area needed to be capped is 53,300 ft^.
-------
-17-
Capping the cadmium-contaminated areas would also cap the volatile
organic-contaminated soil.
A long-term monitoring and maintenance program would be implemented
to monitor groundwater quality and to ensure the integrity of
the cap.
Alternative S-3; Building Decontamination/Soil Excavation/
Fixation/Enhanced Volatilization/On-Site Disposal
In this remedial alternative, the building decontamination
would be carried out in the same manner as that of Alterna-
tive S-2. However, the collected dust would be treated along
with the metal-contaminated soil.
Approximately 5,500 yd^ of metal-contaminated soil and 600 yd^
of volatile organic-contaminated soil would be excavated.
The excavated metal-contaminated soil from nearby residential
yards and the battery plant grounds and the dust from within
the building would be transported to an on-site treatment
facility. In the treatment unit, the contaminated soil and
dust would be mixed with fixating materials (e.g., sodium
silicates, Portland cement and/or other proprietary chemicals)
and water, and allowed to cure for over 48 hours. After
curing, the metal contaminants would be bound and/or physically
encapsulated into the product material. Therefore, the
contaminants in the original soil and dust would no longer
leach out. The fixated material would not be hazardous as
defined by RCRA and would be disposed of on-site in a pit
located in the southwest section of the former battery plant
grounds.
Because fixation would result in a volume increase, it is
anticipated that the ground surface would either have to be
regraded in a different configuration from what currently
exists, or the fixated material would occupy a larger area
of the Site.
The areas where volatile organics were detected contain heavy
metal-contamination below the cadmium level of 20 mg/kg. The
soil found in these areas would be excavated and subjected to
the enhanced volatilization process, and then redeposited
on-site.
-------
-18-
Alternative S-4; Building Decontamination/Soil Excavation/
Fixation/Enhanced Volatilization/Off-Site Disposal
In this remedial alternative, approximately 110 yd3 of dust
would be removed from the inside surfaces of the building
and from the surfaces of the stacked books. Approximately
5,500 yd3 of cadmium-contaminated soil and 600 yd3 of volatile
organic-contaminated soil would be excavated.
The excavated cadmium-contaminated soil from nearby residential
yards and the battery grounds and the dust from within the
building would be transported to an on-site treatment facility.
In the treatment unit, the contaminated soil and dust would
be mixed with fixating materials (e.g., sodium silicates,
Portland cement and/or other proprietary chemicals) and water,
and allowed to cure for over 48 hours. After curing, the metal
contaminants would be bound and/or physically encapsulated
into the product material. The fixated material would not be
hazardous as defined by RCRA, and would be disposed of in an
off-site disposal facility. Clean fill would be brought in
to restore the property to its orginial contour.
The areas where volatile organics were detected contain metal
contaminants below the cadmium cleanup level of 20 mg/kg. The soil
found in these areas would be excavated and subjected to the
enhanced volatilization process, and then redeposited on-site.
SEDIMENTS IN THE VAULT
Alternative V-l; No Action
The "no-action" alternative for the sediments in the vault at
the former battery plant site consists of a long-term monitoring
and institutional control program. Institutional controls
would restrict human access to the vault and prevent development
of this portion of the Site. Currently, there is a chain
link security fence enclosing the entire vault area. The
total length of the fence is approximately 152 m (500 ft).
As added protection, one warning sign would be posted at each
side of the fence. A total of four warning signs would be
needed. A long-term monitoring program would be implemented
in order to assess the migration of contaminants, as well as
to check the condition of the fence.
-------
-19-
Alternative V-2; Sediment Excavation/Chemical Fixation/
On-Site Disposal
Under Alternative V-2, the 5,000 yd3 of sediments within the
vault would be excavated and transported to an on-site chemical
fixation unit. In the treatment unit, the contaminated sedi-
ments would be mixed with fixating materials (e.g. sodium
silicates, Portland cement and/or other proprietary chemicals)
and water. .After curing the mixture for 48 hours, the metal
contaminants would be bound and/or physically encapsulated
into the product material. Fixated material would not be hazardous
as defined by RCRA.
The chemically fixated sediment would be disposed of in a dis-
posal pit developed by enlarging the existing vault area. A
larger disposal pit would be necessary because fixation would
double the volume of the excavated sediments. The disposal
pit would then be covered with top soil and seeded to establish
a grass surface.
Alternative V-3; Sediment Excavation/Chemical Fixation/Off-
Site Disposal
This alternative includes excavation of the 5,000 yd3 of sedi-
ments in the vault, chemical fixation of the sediments on-site and
off-site disposal of the treated sediments. Alternative V-3
is similar to Alternative V-2 in every aspect, except that
the fixated sediments would be disposed of at an off-site dis-
posal facility to be arranged for by NYSDEC.
Alternative V-6; Sediment Excavation/Off-Site Treatment and
Disposal
In this remedial alternative, the 5,000 yd3 of sediments in
the vault would be excavated and transported to an off-site
RCRA-permitted, hazardous waste treatment and disposal facility
to be arranged for by NYSDEC.
After excavation, the vault would be filled with clean soil,
covered with top soil, and seeded to establish a grass surface.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The above eleven alternatives were evaluated using 'evaluation
criteria derived from the NCP and CERCLA Section 121, including
CERCLA Section 121 (b)(l)(A-G). The criteria are as follows:
-------
-20-
Protection of human health and the environment
Compliance with ARARs
Long-term effectiveness and permanence
Reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume
Short-term effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
State acceptance
Community acceptance
Each criterion will be briefly addressed in a comparative
fashion for all the alternatives.
GROUNDWATER
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
All of the groundwater alternatives are protective of human
health and the environment since each alternative will attain
the.New York State and Federal ARARs for the groundwater at
the conclusion of the remedial action. In addition, the
groundwater alternatives will not pose a threat to Foundry
Cove.
Compliance with ARARs
New York State and Federal ARARs will be attained at the
conclusion of the remedial action for each of the groundwater
alternatives. Under Alternatives GW-3 and GW-4, which are
pump and treat options, the treated groundwater would be
discharged to East Foundry Cove in accordance with New York
State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) requirements
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume
The implementation of Alternative GW-3 or GW-4 would reduce
the toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants in the
groundwater by treatment. Alternative GW-1 would reduce the
toxicity, mobility or volume of contaminants in the ground-
water by natural attenuation.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Groundwater remediation is generally unattainable in the short-
term. However, the aquifer is not presently being utilized
as a potable water supply, so there is no short-term risk
from the contaminated groundwater.
Short term risks from the drilling and installation of bedrock
monitoring wells and/or construction and operation of the
treatment processes will be mitigated through proper health
and safety measures.
-------
-21-
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Each of the groundwater alternatives is expected to attain
State and Federal ARARs. The pump and treat options, GW-3
and GW-4, will attain the levels set by the ARARs within the same
timeframe as Alternative GW-1, natural attenuation. Once
cleanup goals are met, all three groundwater options will
protect human health and the environment.
Implementability
All aspects of Alternative GW-1 would be implemented easily.
There are no activities identified with this alternative
which would require coordination with or approval by other
agencies. Materials and services for implementation of
Alternatives GW-3 and GW-4 are readily available from several
vendors. These alternatives could be implemented easily.
SPDES discharge limitations would be obtained from NYSDEC.
Cost
The costs associated with the groundwater alternatives are
shown on Table 7.
State Acceptance
State acceptance of all three groundwater alternatives is
favorable.
-------
-22-
Community Acceptance
Since the local authorities wish to use the aquifer as a
municipal water source, Alternative GW-1 may not be accepted
by the public. Community acceptance of Alternatives GW-3 and
GW-4 would probably be higher since these remedies actively
treat the groundwater.
CONTAMINATED SOIL AND DUST
Overall Protection of Human Health and The Environment
Alternative S-l provides minor protection to human health and
the environment. The fencing would limit site access; however,
future exposure to the contaminants would be possible. In
addition, cadmium-contaminated soil may become entrained in
storm water runoff and could be deposited in East Foundry Cove.
Alternative S-2 adequately protects public health with respect
to the former battery facility, but fails to adequately pro-
tect the community in regard to the contamination on the
battery plant grounds and in nearby residential yards.
Under Alternatives S-3 and S-4, the potential for exposure to
the contaminated soil and dust via all pathways would decrease
substantially. The cadmium-contaminated soil which would
remain in the soil after remediation (concentrations less
than 20 mg/kg) would be within health-based levels.
Compliance with ARARs
Based upon the land disposal restrictions (Land Ban) and in
accordance with 40 C.F.R. Part 261, RCRA hazardous waste
(i.e., listed or characteristic) which is excavated, treated
and then redeposited in the same unit of contamination consti-
tutes placement, and, therefore, the Land Ban requirements
are potentially applicable or relevant and appropriate.
-------
-23-
The cadmium-contaminated soils and dust are not RCRA listed
wastes, although it is possible that they may be RCRA charac-
teristic wastes. EP Toxicity tests will be performed to
determine whether they are RCRA characteristic wastes.
Although the Land Ban requirements are not applicable in
terms of a listed hazardous waste, they may be applicable if
the waste is identified as RCRA characteristic hazardous
waste. A RCRA characteristic hazadous waste is identified as
a waste which exhibits the characteristics of either ignitabil-
ity, corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity (using the extraction
procedure (EP)).
Since RCRA Land Ban applies to waste which is excavated,
treated and then redeposited in the same unit of contamination,
the Land Ban requirements would be applicable or relevant and
appropriate for all soils in Alternative S-3, and for the
volatile organic-contaminated soil in Alternative S-4. This
means that the alternatives involving fixation and enhanced
volatilization would have to treat the soils to a level which
satisfies the requirement for land disposal.
EPA is, presently undertaking a Land Ban rulemaking that will
specifically apply to soil and debris. Until that rulemaking
is completed, the CERCLA program will not consider Land Ban
to be relevant and appropriate to soil and debris that does
not contain RCRA restricted wastes.
The fixated soils in Alternative S-3 would occupy a larger
portion of the Site than they presently occupy, so RCRA min-
imum requirements for design and operation would be relevant
and appropriate.
While permits are not required for on-site remedial actions
at Superfund sites, any on-site action must meet the substantive
technical requirements of the permit process. Alternatives
S-3 and S-4 would comply with all State and Federal requirements
concerning potential air emissions (particulates and volatiles)
during the excavation of the soil hot-spots. The chemical
fixation treatment process (to treat the collected building
dust and" the excavated cadmium-contaminated soil) and the
enhanced volatilization process (to treat the excavated
-------
-24-
volatile organic-contaminated soil) will satisfy the standards
promulgated in 40 C.F.R. Part 264, Subpart X (Miscellaneous
Treatment Units) and 40 C.F.R. Part 264, Subpart 0 (Incinerators),
respectively. The requirements promulgated at 40 C.F.R. Part
264, Section 117; NYCRR Subpart 373.2 (post-closure care and
use of property) are relevant and appropriate for all of the
soil/dust options.
A location-specific ARAR, the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA), would be complied with for all the soil/dust
options. A determination of whether the alternatives would
have any effect on cultural resources would be made during
the design phase.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume
Alternative S-4, which removes the contaminants from the Site
above action levels, would significantly reduce the toxicity,
mob'ility, or volume of the contaminants.
Short-Term Effectiveness
There are no short-term risks associated with Alternative S-l.
Short-term risks to the community and workers-during implement-
ation of Alternatives S-2, S-3 and S-4 would "include an in-
crease in truck traffic, and possibly fugitive dust emissions,
which would be mitigated through proper health and safety
measures.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives S-3 and S-4 would maintain reliable protection
of human health and the environment once the remedial action
is completed.
Implementability
All of the soil/dust options can be easily implemented.
Cost
The costs associated with the soil/dust options, listed
on Table 7, are consistent with the NCP.
-------
-25-
State Acceptance
Although the State is in agreement with the soil/dust proposed
remedial action, it disagrees with the EPA recommended cadmium
cleanup level of 20 mg/kg. The State believes that 20 mg/kg
is unacceptable.
Community Acceptance
"No action" with respect to the soil/dust alternatives is
clearly unacceptable to the community. The community will
only accept alternatives which remove the cadmium-contaminated
dust from inside the building and the cadmium-contaminanted
soil from the battery plant grounds and adjacent residential
yards.
VAULT ALTERNATIVES
Overall Protection of Human Health and Environment
Alternatives V-3 and V-6, which remove the vault and its
contents from the Site, provide the highest degree of pro-
tection to human health and the environment. Alternative
V-2, which fixates the contents of the vault-and replaces
them on-site, would also be protective of both human health
and the environment, but to a lesser degree.
It is unknown at this time to what extent Alternative V-l
"no-action" is protective of human health and the environment.
Compliance with ARARs
As indicated above, based upon the land disposal restrictions
under RCRA, waste which is excavated, treated and then redeposited
in the same unit of contamination constitutes placement.
Therefore, the Land Ban requirements would be applicable or
relevant and appropriate for Alternative V-2. This means
that the fixation process would have to treat the contaminated
sediments to a level which satisfies the requirements for
land disposal. As discussd above, until the EPA rulemaking
is completed,
-------
-26-
the CERCLA program will not consider Land Ban to be relevant and
appropriate to soil and debris that does not contain RCRA
restricted wastes.
While permits are not required for on-site remedial actions at
Superfund sites, any on-site action must meet the substantive
technical requirements of the permit process. Alternatives V-2,
V-3 and V-6 would meet all Federal and State requirements con-
cerning potential emissions of particulates to the air during
excavation of the vault.
The chemical fixation treatment process, used to treat the sedi-
ments in the vault, under Alternative V-3, would satisfy the
standards promulgated at 40 C.F.R. Part 264, Subpart X (Miscel-
laneous Treatment Units).
The requirements promulgated at 40 C.F.R. Part 264, Section
117, 6 NYCRR Subpart 373.2 (post-closure care and use of
property) are relevant and appropriate for all of the vault
options.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative V-3 which calls for the excavation of the vault
offers the highest degree of on-site long-term permanence.
Removal of the vault in conjunction with the overall
cleanup of the Site would allow the Site to be used for a
variety of purposes without endangering human health. Leaving
the vault in place is the least protective remedy. The
long-term reliability of the V-l option is in question because
the useful life of the vault is uncertain.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume
Alternatives V-3 and V-6 will significantly reduce the mobility,
toxicity or volume of the contaminants on-site because the
vault sediments are removed and are rendered immobile by
fixation.
Short-Term Effectiveness
There would be no short-term risks associated with implementing
Alternative V-l. The only short-term risks associated with
Alternatives V-2, V-3 and V-6 would be the exposure of on-site
workers and nearby residents to cadmium-contaminated dust
during excavation of the vault, and the risks caused by
increased truck traffic along Main Street and Kemble Avenue.
These risks would be managed by dust control techniques
-------
-27-
during excavation, and through proper health and safety
measures.
Implementability
All aspects of Alternative V-3 are easily implemented.
Cost
The estimated present worth of removal of the vault is $3,500,000.
Although Alternative V-l is less expensive than Alternative V-3,
Alternative V-l would not provide the most cost-effective remedy
to protect human health and the environment. In addition, the
proposed excavation of the vault would result in cost savings
(by avoiding remobilization activities) if EPA has to excavate
the vault at a future date.
State Acceptance
After the public meeting the State conducted a thorough
analysis of the RI/FS and public comments and concluded that
the vault should be removed from the Site.
Community Acceptance
In written and oral comments to the Agency, the community has
expressed its extreme concern related to leaving the vault in
place. Recognizing that the vault has not contaminated the
groundwater, the community nonetheless is concerned that the
vault should be removed because it is a continuing threat to
their community.
-------
-28-
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The major components of the selected remedy can be summarized
as follows:
- Decontamination of the inside surfaces and contents of the
former battery facility to remove the heavy metal-contamin-
ated dust.
- Excavation of the cadmium-contaminated soil to a level of
20 mg/kg on the battery plant grounds and the residential
yards impacted by the Site.
- Excavation of the on-site dredge spoils vault.
- Fixation of the excavated soil, dust and vault sediments.
- Off-site disposal of the cadmium-contaminated soils, sediments,
and dust at a facility to be arranged for by NYSDEC.
- Excavation of the volatile organic-contaminated soil hotspots
followed by enhanced volatilization and replacement of the
clean residuals on-site.
- Backfilling of the excavated areas with clean fill.
- Institutional controls to restrict development of the aquifer
for potable or municipal use, until State or Federal applicable
or relevant and appropriate requirements are reached.
- Long-term monitoring of the groundwater underlying the Site.
- Evaluation and performance of minor repairs, if needed, to the
inoperable sprinkler and heating systems inside the former
battery facility.
STATUTORY DETERMINATION
Section 121 of CERCLA requires that EPA select a remedy which
is protective of human health and the environment, attains
ARARs, is cost effective, and utilizes permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
Based upon the analysis presented in the Comparative Analysis
of Alternatives and Selected Remedy sections, the following
conclusions were reached regarding the groundwater, soil/dust
and vault alternatives.
-------
-29-
Attainment of ARARs
The selected remedy will attain all ARARs. Contaminated
soils and debris are not RCRA listed wastes based on available
information. In addition, these wastes are not expected to
be characteristic. Hazardous substances with high concentrations
of contaminants will be treated to levels that will not fail
hazardous characteristic tests. Similarly, soils with low
concentrations of hazardous substances are not expected to be
characteristic wastes.
RCRA requirements in 40 C.F.R. Part 264 Subpart G - Closure
and Post-Closure and the New York State equivalent at 6
.NYCRR Subpart 373.2, are relevant and appropriate for the
treated soil which will be redeposited on the Site after
treatment by the enhanced volatilization process. The cleanup
levels for the soils are consistent with an alternative clean
closure which is protective for all routes of exposure and
will not require long-term management or engineering controls.
RCRA general treatment and storage standards for units are
relevant and appropriate for treatment conducted on-site as
are the requirements at 40 C.F.R. Part 264 Subpart 0 - Incin-
erators; 6 NYCRR 373-2.15 e_t seq. , for the enhanced volatil-
ization process.
Although it is not anticipated that hazardous waste will be
transported off-site, if it is, the requirements at 40 C.F.R.
Part 262, 6 NYCRR Part 372, relating to generators, transport-
ers and manifesting would be met.
At this time, EPA is undertaking a RCRA land disposal
rulemaking (Land Ban) that will specifically apply to soil
and debris. Until that rulemaking is completed, the CERCLA
program will not consider the Land Ban to be relevant and
appropriate to soil and debris that does not contain RCRA
restricted wastes.
The selected response action meets the ARARs for the ground-
water portion of the remedy. At the conclusion of the remedial
action, EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) will be met
through the natural attenuation process. In addition, the
remedy attains RCRA Ground Water corrective Action require-
ments by meeting the requirements of a health based Alternate
Concentration Limit (ACL).
Lastly, 6 NYCRR Part 211: General Prohibitions, 6 NYCRR Part 212:
Process and Exhaust and/or Ventilation Systems, and 6 NYCRR Part
257: Air Quality Standards are applicable.
-------
-30-
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative
Treatment Tehnologies or Resource Recovery Technologies
to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP)
GROUNDWATER
The excavation and treatment of soils contaminated with
volatile organics will remove the source of contaminants to
the groundwater.
Due to the hydraulic conditions of the aquifer, the contaminant
plume in the groundwater would disperse and migrate at a
rapid rate. Therefore, it is expected that State and Federal
standards will be achieved through natural attenuation (Alternative
GW-1) within three to ten years after the removal of the
source contamination. This time-frame is comparable to the
time period required for active remediation (Alternatives GW-3
and GW-4). Consequently, the selection of Alternative GW-1
was deemed to be the most appropriate solution for groundwater
remediation.
SOILS AND BUILDING DUST
The selected remedy, Alternative S-4, (Building Decontamination)
Soil Excavation/Fixation/Enhanced Volatilization/Off-Site Disposal)
satisfies the statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element. More significantly, the soil will be cleaned to a
level that is protective of public health and the environment
and provides a permanent solution through the selected alter-
native.
VAULT
The selected alternative, Alternative V-3 (sediment excavation/
chemical fixation/off-site disposal), would comply with
applicable or relevant and appropriate standards. It meets
the statutory preference for treatment to the maximum extent
practicable. In addition, Alternative V-3 provides the most
permanent remedy for the Site.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The remedy selected, satisfies the statutory preference for
treatment as a principal element and addresses, to health-
based levels, the principal threats posed by this operable
unit of the .Site.
-------
-31-
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M)
O&M are those costs required to operate and maintain the
remedial action throughout its lifetime. These activities
ensure the lifetime effectiveness of the remedial alternatives
selected.
O&M requirements (primarily groundwater monitoring) are eligible
for Superfund monies for a period of up to one year to assure
that human health and the environment are being protected.
In subsequent years, any additional O&M costs would be paid for
with State funds.
As part of the remedial action, a long-term groundwater
sampling program is- included to monitor changes in the nature
and extent of contamination at the Site and to determine the
effectiveness of the remedy. Also, as part of the monitoring
program, several monitoring wells screened in bedrock will be
installed on-site.
One hundred percent (100%) of the remedial design will be funded by
EPA. Cost sharing for construction of the remedy is 90%
Federal and 10% State.
FUTURE ACTIONS .-
This ROD addresses the source of contamination by remediation
of the on-site and off-site contaminated soils and the building
dust. The remedy addresses the principal threats posed by Area
II of the Site by removing and treating the contaminated soils
and by natural attenuation of the groundwater contamination.
As part of the remedial design, additional samples will be
collected to determine the areal extent of the off-site
contaminated soil requiring excavation and treatment.
Further sampling and monitoring of the groundwater is planned.
-------
MARATHON BATTERY SITE
SITE LOCATION MAP
CONSTITUTION]
DRIVE
•
SCALE 1:24000
o
1QOO
1000 _ 3000 _ JOOO _ 4000
iOOO 7000
III MIL i •. trti
. "It MIlS
I NIONCTC*
SOURCE: USOS WEST POINT QUADRANGLE
-------
LfTTlE
STONY
POINT
CONSTITUTION BLAND
COVE AND VICINITY
-------
FIGURE $
FORMER BATTERY PLANT GROUNDS
KEHBLE AVENUE
INClOtUftt
CHAIN LINK rf MCf
CONSTITUTION DRIVE
•CALK IN «er
EBflSCO
-------
ffi
ISC'
FORMER RATTKRY
MANUFACTURING PLANT
I !
SI'ILI I'
t MI IH;I wr.v ni SPONsr nivisiow
IPAPM
E. DOMINACH
FIG 4"
In .issnci.ili'in *ith
HI lin .l.n i ili-. | iiipi ii| tin ft Ti»li:i TIM.II Im:
TATfM
E. BIRCKHEAD
MARATHON BATTERY
SITE PLAN
-------
FIGURE 5
AREA OF METAL AND ORGANIC CONTAMINATED SOIL
KEMBLE AVENUE
CONSTITUTION DRIVE
NOTE: THE EXI8TINQ LOCATIONS OF THE
CONTAMINANT ARE INDICATED BY
THE DOTTED OR SHADED AREA.
ffiftSCO
-------
TABLE !
METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN CONTAMINATED SOILS
Concentration! (ma/kg)
Sample Depth
Location cm (In)
1 0-15.2 (0-6)
15.2-30.5 (6-12)
30.5-45.7 (12-18)
2 0-15.2 (0-6) .
15.2-30.5 (6-12)
30.5-45.7 (12-18)
3 0-15.2 (0-6)
4 0-15.2 (0-6)
5 0-15.2 (0-6)
6 0-15.2 (0-6)
15.2-30.5 (6-12)
30.5-45.7 (12-18)
7 0-15.2 (0-6)
15.2-30.5 (6-12)
30.5-45.7 (12-18)
8 0-15.2 (0-6)
15.2-30.5 (6-12)
9 0-15.2 (0-6)
15.2-30.5 (6-12)
10 0-15.2 (0-6)
No. of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
2
1
3
2
1
5
2
4
2
7
£d
Range
-
_
-
—
-
-
-
126-414
62-98
-
11-171
6-37
-
23-43
139-379
247-1360
139-379
A,
12-435 V
Mean
5580
178
306
989
495
1140
1800
114
312
217
80
13
74
22
8.8
34
259
817
259
96
_£j
Range
-
_
-
—
-
-
-
18-22
-
-
_
8.9-161
-
5-9
12-18
12-43
12-18
10-16
Mean
127
NO
NO
27
9.2
. 13
73
38
13
20
13
14
9.2
85
15
7
15
30
15
13
Range Mean
-
_
-
-
-
-
1
118-325
93-168
-
4-235
26-59
-
40-93
68-204
87-953
68-204
38-236
\
2040
164
211
61
101
80
1650
1030
277
227
131
39
! 110
43
! 39
1
67
166
538
166
87
• For locations, see Figure 5-7
-------
TABLE
•2
VOLATILE ORGANIC - CONTAMINATED SOIL
"CONCENTRATION AND -EXTENT
A. CONCENTRATION
Organic TCE Concen-
LOCATION*
11
12
3.
10
15
M {ft
7-4.3 <]
.7-11.3
.2-159 (
) _Samoles nant Ranae
L2-14)
(35-37)
[50-52)
2
1
1
TCE 13-30
TCE
Chloroform
Mean
22
37
120
B. . EXTENT**
LOCATION*
11
12
-Area,
vr (ft*)
150 (1600)
150 (1600)
150 (1600)
Depth
m (ft}
3.1 (10)
3.1 (10)
3.1 (10)
Volume
nT (vd-h
460 (600)
460 (600)
460 (600)
* For locations, see Figure 5-7.
** Defined based on a remediation level of 5 ug/kg.
-------
TA
M/W/M
2 con't
HCSKTS
WMTROH MTTMT
COIO SMIHGS
HEW TOW
Residential Yards
LOCATION
tAiHnt
10
08872*
088727
088728
888729
888738
8883*7
8883*8
0883*4
888731
888732
888733
88873*
088737
088738
088739
OBB570
MTC
SA*nco
87/09/8*
87/89/8*
87/89/8*
87/09/8*
87/89/8*
87/89/8*
87/89/8*
87/89/8*
87/18/f*
9T/10/88
87/18/8*
87/tt/8»
9T/t*/f»
07/10/8*
07/10/86
OT/tO/M
MTC MTC CAMMM COMIT
ffkTV TO WSU1.TS C^"f t^"O
IA8 tCCtlVFO
87/14/8* 87/29/8* 27.70 9.00
07/14/8* 87/79/8* 41.30
07/14/8* 87/29/8* 42.80
07/14/8* 87/29/8* 22.88
87/14/8* 87/29/8* 283.98
87/14/8* 87/29/8* 438.28
•
87/14/8* 87/29/8* 332.28
87/14/8* 87/29/8* 27.18
87/14/9* 87/29/8* 18.38
87/14/8* 87/29/8* 7.38
97/U/8* 87/29/8* 8.38
8T/K/8* 87/29/8* 14.48
87/14/8* 8T/J9/8* 22.88
87/14/8* 87/29/8* 60.60
87/14/8* 87/29/86 38.16
Or/U/86 OT/Z9/86 J.to
3.00
8.00
6.00
11.00
23.00
17.00
11.08
18.88
9.88
9.88
8.88
3.00
2.00
9.00
7.00
ICAD
197.60
40.40
39.60
41.70
33.20
29.00
26.80
42.30
44.10
56.80
38.80
72.10
30.40
41.10
53.«0
23.10
NICKCl
61.90
58.80
81.40
40.10
293.40
721.00
347.79
74.30
29.10
J6.20
26.70
34.90
32.40
60.30
59.10
18.30
2IHC
331.00
33.10
62.80
64.00
104.30
72.40
103.30
118.00
666.00
138.70
168.00
110.90
133.60
94.60
90.90
66.20
•c conct MOVIM VCST
HOHTH rcvec NOVIK KST
HOHTH mcC NOVIW KST
•OMMCST COMCR
38 rCCT WOU • I S OUUO
SOUTIKM mm OOIM MCST
sonim* PCTN OOIVB VCST
WIST fCMX It RCSIOCRTS
NC COMCf MOVI86 SOUTH
CAST mm NOVIM SOUTH
CAST mm njvim) SOUTH
CAST mm ftwiM SOUTH
CAST mm Movtw SOUTH
CAST mm NOVIM SOUTH
MUTHCftST PCM IT W T
se CATC otivt ot
-------
OBSOftSO*
lADLiEi f. <^Vll U
•MHIOO onmio
MRATMM OMTCtT
OOIOSMIKS
KUTOMC
1 i
Residential Yards
umc
to
^ i
000739
000794
•MflB^A
oonvr
000972
QUIT!
018740
9407
9409
9409
940*
OA
OATt OAit OATt
MWltO SW1 TO KOUIM
k IM KOIVCO
07/10/0* 07/14/0* Of/29/*
07/10/0* 07/14/0* 07/29/0*
07/10/0* 07/14/8* Or/29/0»
07/10/0* 07/14/0* 07/W/O*
07/10/0* 07/14/0* 07/29/0*
07/10/0* 07/14/0* 07/29/0*
07/10/0* 07/14/0* 00/Oi/O*
07/10/0* 07/14^ 00/04/0*
07/10/1* 07/Um 00/04/0*
07/10/0* 07/Um 00/04/0*
07/iovM ot/wm oomm
ownn
ffM)
17.90
10.10
439.00
324.20
•13.10
•.30
•.30
•.30
•.31
•.30
•.30
COOALT
.MII
|»^^*.J \rmf
28.80 24.00
32.20 29.90
199.60 239.40 '
119.40 274.20
110.00 277.60
2.90 2.00
0.29 0.20
*
0.29 0.20
0.29 «.20
0.29 0.20
0.29 0.20
tIK
(WW)
74.90
99.90
213.00
110.00
244.00
1.90
2.20
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
. IOCA1IO*
,«««>•••••••••••••
IQU A«IA KM K OA1C
IOW AKA KM 01 CA1C
•t WA1CR TOUCt
tiom of AIO o w « CATC
IflW AKA V tlOC 07 ON
TltrOlAMC
IOW MCA OT OC OAit
tOUTKOO MOt fMI 101
o « ttot or outioioo
MMTKAST COItMtt
ntfOiAW
-JPWtHT5
••r»««»»»«
SOU «16
MM b 16
1
9011 «17
sou its
son fi» ;
sou n*
Ait 01
AIO 02
I
Al« 09
'ii x.
AIR 04
AIO 09
.iii [, >l '!.
-------
TABLE
AVERAGE U.S. -SOIL CONCENTRATIONS
FOR CONTAMINANTS TOUND AT THE
MARATHON BATTERY COMPANY SITE
Parameter Concentrations
Cadmium 0.01-3.5 rag/kg(*)
Nickel 11.1-86.5 rag/kg(D
Cobalt 1.0-6.0 mg/kg<2>
Benzo(a)Pyrene 0.04 to 1.3 mg/kg (rural areas)
Tetrachloroethylene <0.005 mg/kg
Chloroform Not Known
Trichloroethylene Not Known
1,1,1-Trichloroethane Not Known
1,2-dichloroethane Not Known
Toth, S., Unpublished New Jersey Soils Data/ Cook College,
Rutgers University 1970*s (from NJDEP files)
(2) Field Studies Branch, Exposure Evaluation Division, U.S.
EPA, Memo to Junio Morales-Sanchez, Director, Region II
Enforcement
-------
TABLE 4
INORGANIC CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER<]>
Compound/We 1 1
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Barylllum
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
3S
174
_(2)
-
34
-
-
79700
18
-
•
62
-
3939
209
-
-
1740
-
_
16000
-
—
_
58
2S 7SA
106
- .--' -
- -
— .. —
. -
•- _ -
41900 39300
- -
-
-
229
- -
1400 8220
322 77
— —
_ _
1990 1850
- _
_ _
11400 53700
-
— —
— —
20
6S 61 41 41 Not Filtered 5S
- 16400
_ .
_ _ _ _ - .
23 129
_
6.0
84200 17800 62700 7560 7420
25
_ _ _ _ _
79 12
- - - 39800 67
' - - 24
18400 19700 17300 25600 23300
21 47 108 2000 35
0.26 J<3> -
_
1540 - 1820 4420 2700
-
— — — , , — —
13100 - 14600 15100 18600
_ _ _ _ -
_ _ _ _ _
15
35 120
51
28
73
—
_
-
-
6200
-
-
-
-
-
23300
112
_
-
2250
.
.
9660
-
—
—
VI V2
•
. M
-
-
23
-
- -':
88400 70700
-
- -
-
-
- -
19400 20600
27 188
-
-
1660 2190
- -
— —
13300 16500
-
— —
— »
14I:
i
V3 V4 1
1
' ^ —
| - - .
i
i 35 - '
; - -
46300 70400
- .
- i
i
81 -
-
9680 21300
j - 16 !
6.18 3 - •
i - -
1840 1500
- -
, - -
26000 13700
: .
• •
1
1 " —
; 93
V5
i.
».
..
k^
L
1 '
r
L
r>3too
••
i.-
1
* .
i ;
-
14C510
8.0;
i
;.
• '••
:•-,
1^9
14 SOU
-
^
v
(^Concentration in ug/1.
<2>- - Not Detected.
m Estimated Concentration.
-------
MB-3 (NYSDEC)
4 D
5 S
5 I
MB 4 (NYSDEC)
V 1
V 2
V3
V 4
V 5
Trip Blank
TABLE 4 con' t
ORGANIC CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION
IN GROUNDWATER COMPARISON OF
FIRST AND SECOND ROUNDS OF
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
Compounds Identified
Well Number
3 S
MB-1 (NYSDEC)
2 S
7 SA
6 I
6 S
First Round Samoles
ND
(Not Sampled)
NO
Trichloroethylene 100 ug/1
Chloroform 11 ug/1
1,1,1-Trichloroethene 18 ug/1
ND
ND
Second Round Samoles
Trichloroethylene 2 ug/1 3
Trichloroethylene 2 ug/1 3
Trichloroethylene 4 ug/1 J
Chloroform 11 ug/1
1.1,1-trichloroethane 8 ug/1
Trichloroethylene 82 ug/1
ND
1,1,1-TMchloroethane 2 ug/1 3
\ ( ' '
j
i
(Not Sampled)
ND
ND
ND
ND
(Not Sampled)
Trichloroethylene 8 ug/1
Fluorathene 3 ug/1
Pyrene
1,1,1-TrichloroBthane 5.5 ug/1
Trichloroethylene 26 ug/1
Tetrachloroethane 2.4 ug/1
ND
ND
Trichloroethene 6 ug/1
: .ii I !
1,1.1-THchloroethane 9 ug/1 i
Trichloroethylene 65 ug/1 .
ND
ND
Chloroform 1 ug/1 3
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1 ug/1 3
NO
ND :
Chloroform 19 ug/1
Bromochloromethane 1 ug/1 3
ND
ND
ND
Toll Xylenes 1 ug/1 3
ND » Not Detected.
J » Estimated Concentration.
-------
TABLE . 5
CADMIUM, COBALT AND NICKEL
CONTAMINATION IN CONCRETE CORES
AND WIPE SAMPLES (mg/kg)
Sample
Cadmium
"Cobalt
Nickel
Concrete Cores
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Wipe Samples
8
9
' 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
182
625
925
31
253
510
955
4830
78
128
15300
88
341
24
565
136
102
366
125
835
950
735
72
72
263
66
8.0
8.4
7.5
18
7.4
7.1
4.8
16
19
3.6
5.8
12
25
153
8.8
3.7
462
1.2
8.8
1.9
20
9.1
34
15
7.5
23
30
20
2.0
1.8
7.2
32
27
27
200
21
21
156
535
580
128
193
390
920
5310
412
150
21500
36
204
61
555
198
103
540
222
855
1140
645
60
64
240
Blank
0.25
0.60
0.65
-------
TABLE 5 con't
METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN BUILDING
A. Dust from Building Surfaces (Walls, Ceilings, floors, etc.)
Concentration', ma/kg
Contaminant Range Average Median
Cadmium 24 - 15,300 1462 510
Cobalt 1.9 - 462 45 15
Nickel 61 - 21,500 1821 535
B. pust from . Stacked Book Surfaces (Plastic Covers. Boxes
etc.)
Concentration, ma/ka
Contaminant Range Average Median
Cadmium 72 - 253 129 102
Cobalt 1.2 - 34 9 3.7
Nickel 60 - 193 108 103
Results from Ebasco Sampling
-------
TABLE 3_ coif t
1ESULTS
_^»^^^^^^^^MM
•••"^"••^^"^^^^^™
Page 2 of 2
faraaeter
Cadaiua
Cobalt
Lead
Kickel
Zinc
or AKALTSIS or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^H^—I^^M^^HBM^BB^
^
Unit
•g/filter
•g/filter
•g/filter
ag/filter
Bg/filter
WIPE KAXP1
•*•»• •» ^P«* •• ™
••••^•••^•••••i^"^*^*
A-36*
Plant
Area
HM*M^B^^^^*IHIH"1
8.5
0.45
. 1-5
13
0.96
»t MCT.Tjfga
«t««9 MA»WM» T.^^^
-^.^^^^
i^ai^^i^aMBi*^^"^^^^^^^^
r-174*
Plant
^Area
^^••^^^^^••^••^^^^^'^^^
65
<0.01
0.23
78
0.81
6ADCUST 1985 — --•— --" — -----
gk\f Wv • 4»*«»^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^IMHIHn^iHi^HiHMM^^HK
•1^ 1^1^^^^^^^^^^^^—
3426* -
Plant
_Are«
^m _ __ ^,^^,^* _^ ^^^"»
6.5
0.15
7.5
8.9
0.40
. _
•
*
>
^
•v
m
z
o
X
09
£A Laboratory Kuaber
7120
7121
7122
* Area wiped: 100 c«2.
-------
- -RESULTS
Parameter
t
Cadmium
Cobalt
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
— -.— — Ton mil _ j con * t -^^.r.^. : — . .
OF ANALYSIS OF DUST 6AKPLES JECEIVED 6 ADCDST 1>85 - — -— ' "^'
-. . _ _ - - .
----- . . , - .
— • - .... __ — .... ' •
-Wacrete. Hafter Oiacrete i Alacrete Dust
Unit Area of 16 . Floor ^oz Top Palates
Kg/kg 120,000 2,000 16,000
ftg /kg . <4 36 <2
ttg/kg 530 260 1AOO
ag/kg 130,000 2,400 22,000
ag/kg 1,200 5BO 2,500
1
n
«
c
EA Laboratory Number
7123
7124
7125
-------
:iAflLE 6 -'
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL-TECHNOLOGY SCREENING
GROUNDWATER
Remedial Further
Technologies ——- --—_ Evaluation Eliminated
No Action X
Containment
Capping
o Clay Cap X
o Asphalt C.ap X
o Concrete Cap X
o Synthetic Membranes X
Subsurface Barriers
o Sheet piling X
o Slurry Walls X
o Grout Curtains X
Treatment and Disposal Pumping
o Suction Wells * X
o Deep Wells X
9 Well Point Systems X
On-Site Treatment
o Biological Treatment X
o Air Stripping X
o Steam Stripping X
o H202 - UV Oxidation X
o Carbon Adsorption X
o Centrifugation X
o Chemical Oxidation/Reduction X
o Distillation X
o Evaporation X
o Filtration X
o Reverse Osmosis X
Off-Site Treatment • .
o Publicly Owned Treatment X
Works (POTW)
-------
TABLE 6 Gon't
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY SCREENING
SOIL
Remedial
Technologies
No Action
Containment
Capping
o Clay Cap
o Asphalt Cap
o Concrete Cap
o Synthetic Membranes
o Multimedia Cap
Removal
o Excavation
On-Site or Off-Site Treatment
Physical Treatment
o Solid Separation
Chemical Treatment
o Acid Extraction
o Fixation
Thermal Treatment
o Incineration
o Roasting
o Enhanced Volatilization
o Thermoplastic Solidification
In Situ Treatment
Biological
o Biodegradation
Chemical
o Soil Flushing
Further ".
Evaluation" Eliminated
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
TABLE
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY SCREENING
SOIL
Remedial . _ _^-.._~ Further -'^~ "•..'~1... r.'_.
Technologies . Evaluation Eliminated
Thermal
o Vitrification X
Disposal
Disposal as Hazardous Waste
o Construct On-Site RCRA Landfill X
o Construct Off-Site RCRA Landfill X
o Existing RCRA Landfill X
Disposed as Non-Hazardous Waste
o Construct On-Site Landfill X
o Construct Off-Site Landfill X
o Existing Local Landfill X
Transportation
o Truck X
o Train X
o Barge X
-------
~ TABLE 6 Con't
SUMMARY OF REKEDIJX TECHNOLOGY SCREEKIKG
SEDIMENT IN THE VAULT
Further
Evaluation
Remedial
Technologies
No Action
Containment
Capping
o Clay Cap
o Asphalt Cap
o Concrete Cap
o Synthetic Membranes
Subsurface Barriers
o Sheet Piling
o Slurry Walls
o Grout Curtains
Removal
o Excavation
On-Site or Off-Site Treatment
Physical Treatment
o Solids.Separation
Chemical Treatment
o Acid Extraction
o Fixation
Thermal Treatment
o Incineration
o Roasting
o Thermoplastic Solidification
In-Situ Treatment
Biological
o Biodegradation
Chemical
o Soil Flushing
o Solification/Fixation
Eliminated
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
TABLE 6 Con't
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY SCREENING
SEDIMENT IN THE VAULT
Remedial _-.'_. Further
Technologies Evaluation Eliminated
Thermal
o Vitrification X
Disposal
Disposal as Hazardous Waste
o Construct On-Site RCRA Landfill X
o Construct Off-Site RCRA Landfill X
o Existing RCRA Landfill X
Disposed as Non-Hazardous Waste
o Construct On-Site Landfill X
o Construct Off-Site Landfill X
o Existing Local Landfill X
Transportation
o Truck X
o Train X
o Barge X
-------
TJHTLe 7
Summary of costs
Alternative
1) GW-1 No Action
2) Qtf-3 Pumping/Carbon Adsorption/
On-Site Discharge
3) GW-4 Pumping/H202-
UV Oxidation/On-Site Discharge
4) S-l No Action
5) S-2 Building Decontamination/
Off-Site Disposal/Soil Capping
6) S-3 Building Decontamination/
Fixation/Enhanced Volatilization
On-Site Disposal
7) S-4 Building Decontamination/Fixation
Enhance \tolatilization Off-Site Disposal
8) V-l No Action
9) V-2 Sediment Excavation/Fixation/On-Site
Disposal
10) V-3 Sediment Excavation Fixation/
Off-Site Disposal
11) V-6 Sediment Excavation/Off-Site Treatment &
Disposal
CAPI-mL
($1,000)
0
1,520
1,600
14
1,100
3,600
4,900
*
230
2,930
3,500
3,930
ANNIAL O&M ODST
($1,000/YJR)
17 (l-30yr)
700 (1 yr)
677- (2 yr)
861 (1 yr)
838 (2 yr)
21 (1-30 yr)
20 (1-30 yr)
368 (1 yr)
16 (2-30 yr)
380 (1 yr)
15 (l-30yr)
393 (1 yr)
15 (2-30 yr)
378 (lyr)
0.2
PRESENT VDRTH
($1,000)
260
2,800
3,380
340
1,400
4,180
5,270
230
3,520
4,480
3,930
-------
TABLE 8
DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OF INDICATOR CONSTITUENTS IN SOIL
OUST AND GROUNDWATER, WATER QUALITY CRITERIA, AND
CANCER POTENCY SLOPES
Ambient Water Quality
Criteria (ug/1)
For the Protection of
USEPA Cancer
Potency Slope
Parameter
Cadmium
Nickel
Tri chl oroethyl ene
Chloroform
1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane
Tetrachl oroethyl ene
1 , 2-di chl oroe thane
Soil
(mq/kq)
ND(2) - 5580
NO -
NO -
NO -
NO
NO -
NO
2040
0.03
0.12
'' -
0.015
Water
fug/1)
ND-6.0
NO
NO -
NO -
NO -
NO -
ND -
100
11.0
2.4
2.4
15.0
Dust
(mq/kql
31-15300
60-21500
NA(3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Human Health
USEPA NYSDEC (5
10.0 10.0
15.4 —
5.0 10.0
100 100
200 —
0(1) —
5.0 —
NYSDEC
) f6)
—
5.0
100(7)
5.0
5.0
5.0
(mg/kd/day-')
Oral Inhalation
—
—
0.011
0.081
0.0573(4)
0.051
0.91
6.1
—
0.0043
0.081
—
0.0017
0.91
(1) MCLG
(2) ND - Not Detected
(3) NA - Not Analyzed
(4) Based on cancer potency of 1.1,2-trichloroethylene
(5) New York State Water Quality Regulations March 1986
(6) New York State HCl't for Public Water Supply systems - proposed 1988
(7) New York State MCl's for Public Water Supply Systems - proposed: Based on total halogenated methanes criteria
-------
EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 112-2L37.0
EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-01-7250
DRAFT
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
FOR THE
MARATHON BATTERY COMPANY SITE
VILLAGE OF COLD SPRING, NEW YORK
SEPTEMBER 1988
NOTICE
The information in this document has been funded by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA) under REM III
Contract No.68-01-7250 to Ebasco Services, Inc. (EBASCO). This
document is a draft and has not been formally released by either
Ebasco or EPA. As a draft, this document should not be cited or
quoted, and is being circulated for comment only.
-------
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED EBASCO
160 Chubb Avenue. Lyndhurst. NJ 07071-3586. (201) 460-1900
September 26, 1988
RMOIII-88-314
Ms. Lillian Johnson
Community Relations Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
SUBJECT: REM III PROGRAM - EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-01-7250
WORK ASSIGNMENT NO.: 112-2L37.0
MARATHON BATTERY COMPANY SITE - AREA 2
DRAFT RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY _
Dear Ms. Johnson:
Ebasco Services Incorporated (EBASCO) is pleased to submit this
draft Responsiveness Summary for the Marathon Battery Company
site. If you have any comments, please call me at (201) 460-
6434 or Carl Zoephel at (201) 906-2400.
Very truly yours,
Dev R. Sachdev
REM III Region II Manager
cc: M. Shaheer Alvi
M.K. Yate's
R.T. Fellman
M. Amdurer
J . McAdoo
N. Wilding
-------
Ms. Lillian Johnson RMOIII-88-314
September 26, 1988
Page 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT
Please acknowledge receipt of this enclosure on the duplicate
copy of this letter and return the signed duplicate letter to:
Dr. Dev Sachdev, Ebasco Services Incorporated, 160 Chubb Avenue,
Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071.
Ms. Lillian Johnson * Date
-------
REM III PROGRAM
REMEDIAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES AT
SELECTED UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE
DISPOSAL SITES WITHIN EPA REGIONS I-IV
EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 112-2L37.0
EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-01-7250
DRAFT RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
MARATHON BATTERY COMPANY SITE
VILLAGE OF COLD SPRING, NEW YORK
SEPTEMBER 1988
Prepared by:
Carl S. Zoephel
REM III Community
Relations Specialist
ICF Technology, Inc.
Date
Approved by:
NeiS-Wilding
REM III Site
Manager
Ebasco Services, Inc.
Dev R. Sachdev Date
REM III Region II
Manager
Ebasco Services, Inc.
-------
MARATHON BATTERY COMPANY SITE
VILLAGE OF COLD SPRING
PUTNAM COUNTY, NEW YORK
DRAFT RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held a public
comment period from May 30, 1988 through July 6, 1988 for
interested parties to comment on EPA's draft supplemental Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and Proposed Remedial
Action Plan (PRAP) for the Area II portion of the Marathon Battery
Company Superfund site.
EPA held a public meeting on June 13, 1988 at the Cold Spring Fire
Hall in Cold Spring, New York to describe the remedial
alternatives and present EPA's and the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation's (NYSDEC's) preferred remedial
alternatives for Area II of the Marathon Battery Company site.
A responsiveness summary is required for the purpose of providing
EPA and the public with a summary of citizens' comments and
concerns about the site, as raised during the public comment
period, and EPA's responses to those concerns. All comments
summarized in this document will be factored into EPA's final
decision for selection of the remedial alternatives for cleanup of
Area II of the Marathon Battery Company site.
I. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY OVERVIEW. This section briefly
describes the background of the Marathon Battery Company site
and outlines the proposed remedial alternatives for Area II
of the Marathon Battery Company site.
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS.
This section provides a brief history of community interest
and concerns regarding the Marathon Battery Company site.
III. SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS RECEIVED
DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND EPA RESPONSES TO THESE
COMMENTS. This section summarizes both oral and written
comments submitted to EPA at the public meeting and during
the public comment period, and provides EPA's responses to
these comments.
IV. REMAINING CONCERNS. This section discusses community
concerns that EPA should be aware of as they prepare to
undertake the remedial designs and remedial actions at the
Marathon Battery Company site.
-------
V. APPENDICES. This section contains written comments
submitted to EPA and EPA's responses to the comments. The
section is divided into the following appendices:
Appendix A: Letters to and from State and Federal
Officials and EPA's responses.
Appendix B: Technical comments and questions and EPA's
responses.
Appendix C: General comments and questions and EPA's
responses.
I. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY OVERVIEW.
The Marathon Battery Company site, located in the Village of Cold
Spring, Putnam County, New York, approximately 60 kilometers (km)
north of New York City, includes a former nickel-cadmium battery
manufacturing facility and surrounding plant grounds; the Hudson
River in the vicinity of the Cold Spring pier, and a series of
river backwater areas known as East and West Foundry Coves and
Constitution Marsh.
In 1952, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) constructed a
battery manufacturing facility in the Village of Cold Spring, for
the U.S. Army Signal Supply Agency. >" I
In 1953, under contract with the Army Signal Corps, Sonotone
Corporation began operating the plant to produce nickel-cadmium
batteries for use in the NIKE Missile Program. Subsequent
contracts for battery production at the plant included batteries
for warhead failsafe systems and military jet fighters. Between
1954 and 1955, the contract was amended to permit Sonotone
Corporation to produce commercial batteries.
In 1962, the government, having declared the property excess, sold
it to Sonotone Corporation, who in 1967, became a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Clevite Corporation. In 1969, Clevite Corporation
merged with Gould, Incorporated who sold the plant to Business
Fund, Incorporated, which later changed its name to Marathon
Battery Company. Marathon Battery Company operated the plant
until March 1979. The plant was inactive from March 1979 until
November 1980, when it was sold to the current owner, Merchandise
Dynamics, Incorporated, for use as a book storage facility.
Merchandise Dynamics, Incorporated is presently bankrupt.
The plant's wastewater treatment system originally consisted of a
lift station and piping for the transfer of all process wastewater
into the Cold Spring sewer system for discharge directly into the
Hudson River at the Cold Spring pier. In addition, a by-pass was
installed so that when the lift station was shut down or
-------
overloaded the wastewater was discharged directly into East
Foundry Cove Marsh.
In 1965, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH)
identified the need for a sewage treatment plant in the Village of
Cold Spring. During the design of the sewage treatment facility,
the Village's consultant concluded that the battery plant's
process effluent could not be managed by the proposed sewage
treatment system. Subsequently, the Village of Cold Spring
ordered Sonotone Corporation to disconnect its industrial
discharge from the Village's sanitary sewer. To accomplish this
directive, Sonotone shut down the pumps which discharged into the
Hudson River through the Cold Spring municipal sewer system and
by-passed the entire wastewater flow into East Foundry Cove.
Sonotone then installed equipment which was designed to
precipitate metal hydroxides and adjust the pH of the wastewater
prior to discharge into the storm sewer system. However, this
treatment system failed to operate properly. As a result, the
treated wastewater failed to meet state discharge regulations, and
the plant was given a deadline of January 1, 1970 to achieve
compliance with these regulations.
In 1972, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a suit and then
signed a Consent Agreement requiring the owners/operators to
remove as much contamination from Foundry Cove as was
economically, technically, and ecologically feasible. Hydraulic
dredging was conducted between September.1972 and July 1973 and
the dewatered dredge spoils were placed in a clay-lined
underground vault on the plant property. The vault was then
sealed with asphalt and fenced.
Various studies by New York University and others, were conducted
on the Foundry Cove cadmium contamination problem prior to,
during, and after the dredging activities. Post-dredging
monitoring continued to detect elevated cadmium and nickel
concentrations in the Cove's sediments, flora and fauna.
In October 1981, the Marathon Battery Company site was added to
EPA's National Priorities List of hazardous waste sites.
In August 1983, EPA and the State of New York signed a cooperative
agreement to.undertake a remedial investigation and feasibility
study (RI/FS) for the Marathon Battery Company site. ACRES
International, NYSDEC's consultant, initiated the RI/FS covered by
the cooperative agreement in May 1984.
An RI/FS report on the nature and extent of the contamination of
the Foundry Cove/Hudson River portion of the site was completed in
July 1985. Because the FS contained insufficient information to
evaluate the technical merits and environmental effects of the
remedial alternatives under consideration, additional RI/FS
activities were necessary. Lead responsibility for the site was
-------
transferred to EPA and a supplemental RI/FS was completed by
Ebasco (EPA's contractors) in August 1986.
In order to expedite the Superfund process, EPA has divided the
site into three separate geographic areas: Area I, East Foundry
Cove Marsh and Constitution Marsh; Area II, the former battery
facility and surrounding grounds; and Area III, East Foundry Cove,
West Foundry Cove, and the Hudson River in the vicinity of the
Cold Spring pier.
On September 30, 1986, EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD),
selecting a remedy for Area I. Selection of the cleanup option
was based on previous studies, site investigations by Ebasco, and
comments received from the public.
The selected cl.ean-up activities include:
Dredging of contaminated sediment from East Foundry Cove
Marsh;
Sediment thickening, chemical fixation and off-site disposal
in a sanitary landfill;
Replacement of the excavated sediment with clay and clean
fill followed by revegetation of the marsh; and
Long term monitoring of heavy-metal .concentrations at
Constitution Marsh (since it is believed that dredging of
Constitution Marsh would cause extensive environmental
degradation to the marsh, the No-Action alternative was
selected).
Field activities for Area II were initiated in late 1986 and were
completed in March 1988. These activities include: the
collection of soil and groundwater samples from the plant grounds
and wipe samples and floor borings from inside the former battery
facility.
Field activities for Area III were initiated in late 1986 and
include the collection of soil sediments, water, and fish tissue
sampling from West Foundry Cove, and the Hudson River in the
vicinity of the Village of Cold Spring pier. Samples will be
analyzed for cadmiuni, cobalt, and nickel content.
Twenty remedial alternatives were identified in the Area II
Feasibility Study to address the contaminated groundwater and soil
from the former battery facility, and the dredge spoils vault. Of
these, eleven alternatives were considered for detailed
evaluation. These include:
-------
Groundvater
Alternative GW-1; No Action
This alternative includes use of existing monitoring wells to
conduct a long-tern groundwater monitoring program which would
monitor the concentrations of contaminants of concern (i.e.,
trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, 1,1,1, - trichloroethane,
1,2 - dichloroethane and chloroform) in the aquifer underlying the
former battery plant grounds. In addition, the development of the
aquifer for potable and municipal water uses would be restricted
through institutional controls. The monitoring program would
include placement of additional monitoring wells screened into the
bedrock.
Alternative GW-3: Pumping/Carbon Adsorption/On-Site Discharge
Under this alternative a well system consisting of 4 extraction
wells would be installed to withdraw contaminated groundwater for
on-site treatment by carbon adsorption. The treated groundwater
would be discharged to East Foundry Cove.
Alternative GW-4; Pumpina/H202'"uv Oxidation/On-Site Discharge
This alternative consists of pumping, collecting, and treating
contaminated groundwater. The contaminated groundwater would be
mixed with a 50% hydrogen peroxide solution and then pumped into
an oxidation chamber. UV light would be used to accelerate the
oxidation process. The contaminants in the water would be
oxidized to C02, H2 and halides and the clean water would then be
discharged to East Foundry Cove.
Soil/Battery Facility
Alternative S-l: No Action
For this "no-action" alternative, the following activity would be
implemented to restrict the public access to the former battery
plant grounds:
o Continue enclosing the former battery plant grounds by using
the existing property fence. Warning signs would be attached
to the fence. .
In addition, a long-term monitoring program would be conducted to
check groundwater quality and migration of metal contaminated soil
due to erosion.
-------
Alternative S-2; Building Decontamination/Off-Site Disposal/Soil
Capping
The metal contaminated dust on the inside surfaces of the building
(e.g. walls, ceilings, floors, etc.) and on the surfaces of the
stacked books would be decontaminated using a dusting, vacuuming
and wiping procedure. The collected dust would then be
transported by truck to an off-site RCRA Landfill. The
contaminated ground surface would be compacted, graded and capped
with macadam.
Alternative S-3; Building Decontamination/Soil Excavation/
Fixation/Enhanced Volatilization/On-Site Disposal
In this remedial alternative, the building decontamination would
be carried out in the same manner as that of Alternative S-2.
However, the collected dust would be treated along with the metal
contaminated soil as described in the following.
The excavated metal contaminated soil and dust would be bound
and/or physically encapsulated into a product material (fixated)
and the contaminants would no longer be able to leach out. The
fixated material would no longer be hazardous and would be
disposed of on-site in a pit located in the southwest section of
the former battery plant grounds. The volatile organic
contaminated soil would be subjected to enhanced volatilization.
>*,'
-.-•»
Alternative S-4; Building Decontamination/Soil
Excavation/Fixation/Enhanced Volatilization/Off-Site Disposal
This remedial alternative is the same as Alternative S-3 except
that the fixated material would be trucked to an off-site disposal
facility. The "cleaned" organic contaminated soil (after enhanced
volatilization) along with additional clean soil, would be brought
in, and be used to backfill the excavated areas. These areas
would be covered with top soil and reseeded to establish a grass
surface.
Dredge Spoils Vault
Alternative V-l; No Action
This remedial alternative would leave the vault in its existing
condition. The Remedial Investigation results indicate that no
contaminant metals (Cd, Co, and Ni) have been leached out to
contaminate the groundwater underlying the former battery plant
grounds, and that the vault is intact. The metal contaminated
sediment in the vault was mixed with 0.5% (by volume) of powdered
limestone (to keep the metals insoluble in water to prevent
leaching). The vault has been fenced to restrict public access.
-------
A long-term groundwater monitoring program and periodic inspection
of the vault capping would be included in this alternative in
order to check the integrity of the vault. This program would
also involve maintenance of vegetation on top of the vault.
Alternative V-2t Excavation/Fixation/On-Site Disposal
In this remedial alternative, the operations involved in
excavating, fixating and disposing of the 5,000 yd3 of
contaminated sediments in the vault are the same as those used for
the soil removal in Alternative S-3. The chemically fixated
sediment would be disposed of in the disposal pit developed by
enlarging the existing vault. A larger disposal area would be
needed because the fixated materials volume could be as twice as
much as the volume of the contaminated sediment. The disposal pit
would be covered with topsoil and reseeded.
Alternative V-3; Excavation/Fixation/Off-Site Disposal
In this remedial alternative, the operations involved in
excavating, fixating and disposing of the 5,000 yd3 of sediment in
the vault are the same as those used for the contaminated soil in
Alternative S-4. The excavated vault would be backfilled with
clean soil, covered with top soil and reseeded to establish a
grass surface.
Alternative V-6; Sediment Excavation/Of£-Site Treatment and
Disposal
This alternative includes excavation of the sediments in the
vault, and transportation of the excavated sediment to an off-site
RCRA treatment and disposal facility.
Selection of an Alternative
EPA's selection for remediation at the Marathon Battery Company
site is based on the requirements of CERCLA and SARA. These laws
require that a selected site remedy be protective of human health
and the environment, cost-effective, and in accordance with other
statutory requirements. Current EPA policy also emphasizes
permanent solutions incorporating on-site remediation of hazardous
waste contamination whenever possible. After consideration of all
available design documents for the vault, it is the agency's
decision that removal of the vault (Alternative V-3) would provide
a higher degree of protection to human health and the environment
than the no-action alternative recommended in the PRAP.
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS
The Marathon Battery Company site emerged as a major community
issue in Cold Spring when EPA and NYSDEC signed a cooperative
agreement in September 1983 to undertake an investigation of the
-------
site. EPA and NYSDEC have both been actively involved with the
public participation program at the site. The agencies have heldj
several public meetings, numerous informal meetings, and public
availability sessions, as well as meetings with the local
officials. The community has been very involved with the Marathon
Battery Company site and there are a number of organizations that
have also expressed concerns about the site. These organizations
include: the National Audubon Society; Scenic Hudson and the
Clearwater, two Hudson River-based environmental groups; the
Preservation and Revitalization of the Cold Spring Area (PROCO);
the Hudson River Fisherman's Association; and the Concerned
Citizens About Removing Toxins (CCART).
The major concerns expressed by the community over the last few
years are listed below.
Health Risk Associated with the Plant Facility. Results of
the RI indicate that there has been no migration of
contaminants from the vault. Areas of contamination have
been found however, on the facility property, in the facility
building, and in adjacent residential yards. Although this
is an issue of genuine concern for the residents of
Constitution Drive, they are equally, if not more, concerned
with the pile of debris that has accumulated in the yard on
the facility property.
Health Risks Associated with Eating Local Marine Life. Blue
claw crabs are harvested in the lower Hudson River basin,
are a regular part of the diet of many residents. Studies
have shown that crabs and other marine life in the Cold
Spring area contain high levels of cadmium.
User and Property Issues. The West Foundry Cove is also a
hub for recreational boating in the area. The Cold Spring
Boat Club and some business people in the community would
like to upgrade the existing waterfront facilities and
further develop waterfront property. These plans have been
suspended until the remedial action at the Area III portions
of the Marathon Battery Company site takes place. These
members of the community have a strong desire to see the
remedial action decided upon and completed. Moreover,
although property values have risen dramatically in recent
years, there is a fear that eventually property values will
be hurt by prolonging the remedial action.
Water Source for the Fire Department. The Village of Cold
Spring has expressed a need for an additional water supply
for its fire department. There are two logical and readily
available options: the water well at the former Marathon
Battery Company plant and the Hudson River near the Cold
Spring Pier. Access to both sources has been denied,
however, until' the completion of remedial action. Access is
8
-------
restricted due to the contaminated sediments in the Hudson
River and the volatile organics in the groundwater.
Hudson River Contamination. The overall cleanliness of the
Hudson River is a major concern to both the local community
and a number of national and regional environmental groups.
Groups such as the Clearwater and Scenic Hudson have been
actively involved in all phases of the work conducted to date
at the site, and can be expected to remain active throughout
the entire remedial action.
Railroad Easement. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Railroad, one of the major rail connections between New York
City and Albany, is the dividing line between East and West
Foundry Cove. The railroad is supported by pilings in the
channel. The railroad authority wants to be assured that any
remedial action will not damage the existing structure.
Issues Concerning Remedial Action. Local residents feel that
much money has been spent with no tangible results. They
feel that there is no developed plan of action and that they
have yet to be given any real guarantee that the site will be
cleaned up. The ROD signed for Area I has somewhat mitigated
this concern. The ROD selected a remedy for Area I, and that
remedy is currently under design.
An additional concern that has recently been expressed to EPA
is the potential hazard of a fire in the former battery
building. The building is used to store books and the
sprinkler system in the building is currently inoperative.
The potential exists that a fire could result in a
significant release of hazardous waste to the environment.
To address this concern, EPA is considering repairing the
sprinkler system and the currently inoperable heating system
(to prevent freezing of the sprinkler system pipes in the
winter).
III. SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND EPA RESPONSES TO THESE COMMENTS
Comments raised at the public meeting held on June 13, 1988 are
summarized below and are organized into the following categories:
A. Alternatives GW-1, No-Action; S-4, Building
Decontamination/Soil Excavation/Fixation/Enhanced
Volatilization/Off-Site Disposal; and V-l, No Action;
B. Dredge spoils vault;
C. Cost of remediation, and
D. Other site-related concerns.
-------
Written comments submitted to EPA during the public comment
period, along with EPA's responses to those comments are attached
as Section V.
A. ALTERNATIVES GW-1, S-4 AND V-l
1. Comment: Several residents asked how long and how frequently
EPA would continue to monitor the groundwater and the dredge
spoils vault (if it were left on-site).
EPA Response: After one year, NYSDEC would be responsible
for monitoring the groundwater underlying the site for a 30
year period. However, this period is primarily for the
purpose of determining the costs of the alternatives. The
monitoring would continue for as long as necessary if the
vault is retained. NYSDEC would check the surface condition
of the dredge spoils vault annually.
2. Comment: A resident asked for clarification as to which
government agency would be responsible for the monitoring
program at the site.
EPA Response: EPA and NYSDEC will sign an agreement that
will assign responsibility for monitoring the Marathon
Battery Company site to NYSDEC.
3. Comment: Several residents requested' information about the
potential increase in the amount of truck traffic that could
result from the off-site disposal of the fixated metal-
contaminated soil and dust. They also asked if a route had
been determined for the increased truck traffic.
EPA Response: The method of transporting material off-site
has not yet been decided, and will be examined in detail
during the remedial design. EPA is investigating the
possibility of transporting the material by railroad freight
cars as was suggested at a previous public meeting. If
trucks are used for transportation, approximately 40 trucks
per day for seven months would be needed to remove material
from Area I, and 12 truckloads per day for two to three
months would be required to remove the material in Area II.
If the use of trucks is determined to be the method of
transportation, the design engineers will determine and
propose a route that would be least disturbing to area
residents to the maximum extent possible.
4. Comment: Two residents asked about the disposal location for
the fixated metal-contaminated soil and dust.
EPA Response: NYSDEC will designate a disposal site during
the remedial design phase of the project.
10
-------
5. Comment: A resident asked if EPA would consider
vitrification technology to remediate the site if a disposal
site could not be identified.
EPA Response: EPA has already evaluated vitrification as an
alternative, and has determined that vitrification would
essentially transform the entire area into a glass-like
product, and would not achieve a higher level of public
health protection than the fixation process proposed by EPA.
6. Comment: Several residents wanted to know the role of NYSDEC
in the selection of a remedial alternative for the site.
EPA Response: EPA and NYSDEC have worked together on the
investigation of the site, jointly reviewing all documents,
data, etc. While the selection of a remedy for this site is
the responsibility of EPA's Regional Administrator, NYSDEC's
concurrence with the remedy is desired.
B. DREDGE SPOILS VAULT
1. Comment: Several questions were asked regarding the
laboratory detection limits used by EPA in analyzing the
cadmium levels in the groundwater in the vicinity of the
dredge spoils vault and the detection limits suggested by
NYSDEC.
*•'"
EPA Response: The analyses performed on the groundwater used
the lowest detection values capable of by the laboratory.
The cadmium detection limits ranged in value from 0.7
micrograms per liter to 5 micrograms per liter. All readings
of cadmium detected in the groundwater were recorded in the
Remedial Investigation report. NYSDEC's current lower
detection limit for cadmium in groundwater is 0.5 micrograms
per liter. The difference between the lower detection limits
is insignificant, and EPA is confident that the analyses
conducted would have detected any contaminants leaching from
the vault into the groundwater.
2. Comment: A resident asked if the laboratories conducting the
analyses were EPA labs, or if EPA contracted lab work to the
lowest bidder.
EPA Response: 'The labs are not EPA labs. Contract
laboratories are selected on their ability to properly
analyze samples.
i
3. Comment: Several individuals asked about the life expectancy
of the dredge spoils vault.
11
-------
EPA Response: According to Dr. Harry Gregor, the designer
the vault, it is designed to last indefinitely, in general,
however, containment facilities are usually designed for 30
years.
4. Comment: Several residents asked why EPA did not plan to
remove the dredge spoils vault during site remediation, when
manpower and equipment would be at the site removing the
fixated metal-contaminated soil and dust. They also asked
what course of action EPA would pursue if the vault started
to leak.
EPA Response: After consideration of all available
information regarding the vault, it is the agency's
conclusion that removal of the vault is a more appropriate
solution for this portion of the site in assuring a higher
level of confidence in the long-term effectiveness and
permanence of the remedy, than the no-action alternative.
C. COST OF REMEDIATION
1. Comment: A resident asked if the potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) had been identified at the Marathon Battery
Company site, and if any municipalities had been named as a
PRP.
*s.
EPA Response: The PRPs have been identified and will be
pursued through-legal channels to accept responsibility for
remediation of the site. At this time no municipalities havc
been named as PRPs.
2. Comment: A resident asked who would be responsible for
absorbing the cost of cleaning up the site at the present
time.
EPA Response: If the PRPs do not offer to undertake the
work, EPA will use Superfund monies to pay for 90 percent of
the cleanup costs. NYSDEC will provide the remaining 10
percent.
3. Comment: A local official wanted to know why EPA evaluated
cost as a criteria for selecting a remedial alternative,
rather than selecting the most effective remedy for the site.
EPA Response: There are nine criteria that EPA must evaluate
during the selection of a remedial alternative. These
include: short-term effectiveness, long-term effectiveness
and performance, reduction of toxicity mobility or volume,
implementability, cost, compliance with applicable, relevant
and appropriate requirements (ARARs), overall protection of
human health and the environment, state acceptance, and
community acceptance. It is a statutory requirement to
12
-------
select the cost effective remedy. The objective is to select
the most cost-effective, environmentally sound remedy.
4. Comment: A resident questioned whether funds would be
available in the future for removal of the vault, if the
vault were to be left in-place.
EPA Response: EPA anticipates that the Superfund program
will be reauthorized, making funds available for remediation
of the vault, if the vault were to be left in-place.
D. OTHER SITE RELATED CONCERNS
1. Comment: A local official requested information on the
procedures that EPA would use to clean up the East Foundry
Cove Marsh in Area I.
EPA Response: Following dredging of the contaminated
sediments, the sediments will be chemically fixated to
stabilize the metal contaminants. The fixated material will
then be transported off-site for disposal. Following this
process, the excavated sediment will be replaced with clay
and clean fill and the marsh area will be revegetated.
2. Comment: A local official asked EPA about the anticipated
time period for EPA to conduct their activities within the
three separate areas at the Marathon,^Battery site.
EPA Response: A Record of Decision (ROD) for Area I was
signed by EPA in September 1986, and the remedial design for
that area should be completed by Spring 1989. The remedial
design for Area II is expected to be completed in
approximately one year, or the Summer of 1989. Following
completion of the design phases, the actual remedial actions
for Areas I and II can be implemented. The investigation of
Area III was initiated in late 1986 and EPA is anticipating a
ROD for that area in the Spring of 1989.
3. Comment: A resident asked how the groundwater in the
Marathon Battery site area became contaminated with volatile
organics.
\
EPA Response: Volatile organic contaminants from
contaminated soils on the site leached down into the
groundwater and migrated off site.
4. Comment: A resident inquired about the results of soil
samples taken in neighborhood backyards.
EPA Response: EPA took 23 surface soil samples in residents'
yards. Cadmium levels ranged from 4.0 to 67.0 parts per
million (ppm), with a mean of 17.1 ppm. During the design
13
-------
phase of the project, EPA will collect additional samples to
determine the extent of contamination that may be present on
private properties, which will require remediation.
5. Comment: Several residents asked if EPA assumed
responsibility for the former battery facility building, and
questioned why the building was allowed to be used as a book
storage facility.
EPA Response: The facility was purchased by Merchandise
Dynamics in 1980 for utilization as a book repository before
the site became a Superfund site. When samples were
collected in the facility, which indicated that high levels
of contamination were present, EPA indicated to the owner
that the books present in the facility would require
decontamination prior to removal. The former battery
facility is private property. EPA must have permission from
the property owners in order to enter the property. If this
situation becomes difficult at some point, EPA can obtain
legal authority to enter the property and conduct any
necessary activities.
6. Comment: Several local firemen expressed concern over the
possibility of a potential release of hazardous substances
occurring in the event of an on-site fire.
EPA Response: Contaminants on the building grounds and the
building will be removed -as part of the remediation of the
site. In the interim, EPA is proposing to repair the
sprinkler system in the former battery facility building and
repair the building heating system to ensure that the
sprinkler pipes do not freeze in the winter.
7. Comment: A resident asked about the physical condition of
the site grounds and the former battery facility building
following remediation.
EPA Response: The excavated areas will be backfilled with
treated soil and clean fill. Following remediation, the
building and grounds can be used for any suitable industrial
purpose. The former battery facility itself, and the
adjacent yards will be cleaned up to a level of 20 ppm.
IV. REMAINING CONCERNS
Concerns raised at the public meeting by the community about
remedial activities at the Marathon Battery Company site will
continue to be important community issues. The primary reason for
the continuing high level of community interest is because the
site is broken up into three distinct areas, or operable units,
and identical issues resurface during the RI/FS process for each
area.
14
-------
One area of concern that may significantly increase during •
remedial activities is the potential for the detection of cadmium-
contaminated soil in the yards of private residences. Area
residents should be kept fully informed of sampling activities and
results throughout the investigation in order to dispel public
health concerns.
15
-------
SECTION V. APPENDICES-'
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
THESENATE i'FFIC: rf
f% *• • • .m •,
STA/E OF NEW YORK
MARY B. GOODHUE
SENATOR 37i- DISTRICT
CHAIRMAN
COMMITTEE ON CHILD CARE
VICE-CHAIRMAN
LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ON THE
ODERNIZATION AND SIMPLIFICATION
r TAX ADMINISTRATION AND TAX LAW
PLEASE REPLY TO:
O ROOM OOJ. LOB
ALBANY. NEW YORK 12247
V 9IB-«SS-JIII
Cr DISTRICT OFFICE
22B EAST MAIN STREET
MT KISCO. NEW YORK IOS«a
R*
August 5, 1988
Magalie Beausejour, Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
26 Federal Plaza, Room 23-102
New York, NY 10278
COMMITTEES
AOINO
COOES
INCROY .
INVESTIOATIONS. TAXATION AND
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
JUDICIARY
MENTAL HVOIENE ANO..
ADDICTION: $oNTRotr*
.[.
Dear Ms. Beausejour:
Re:
Marathon Battery Site
Cold Spring, New York
As the State Senator who represents the Village of Cold Spring, N.Y.,
I am writing to echo the opinion of those who fear that the EPA's Proposed
Remedial Action Plan (JUNE 1988) for the above site is not adequate to
protect the health and safety of local residents. My office has been
flooded with letters and petitions from residents who disagree with the
plan, which has the endorsement of NYS DEC, particularly the assessment of "^
'No Action' concerning the dredge spoils vault on the site. I must say I o1
find it incomprehensible that on the one hand the area could be on a . . 'o
federal list of contaminated properties needing attention, and on the other
hand that no action is recommended for a vital portion of the contaminated
area.
Neither residents nor other elected officials are at ease with the EPA'"
and NYS DEC contention that a clay-lined vault in an asphalt pit is adequate
to prevent the leaching of toxic materials from the dredge spoils. It seems
contradictory that the NYS DEC has recently determined that municipal land-
fills will need to 'include double layers of clay and synthetic liners as
well as systems for the collection of leachate, yet it will allow the toxic
materials at the Marathon Battery Site to remain in a clay-lined vault built
15 years ago.
In terms of the 'No Action' decision on groundwater, the Proposed
Remedial Action Plan states, "It is assumed [my underline] that long-term
groundwater monitoring will comply with New York hazardous waste management
system groundwater monitoring requirements." This issue is too important
to be left to an assumption. What steps will be taken to ensure that long-
term monitoring is accomplished and that results of this testing will comply
with appropriate standards?
-------
Ms. "agalie Beausejour
August 5, 1988
Page 2
Residents are understandably upset with reports of cadmium contamination
in soil samples taken from their backyards. If this is the case, why have no
health advisories been issued and why does the Proposed Remedial Action Plan
not address this issue? Are there any plans, either by the EPA or by NYS DEC
to study long-term effects of this contamination?
These are merely some of the concerns the community shares about the
contaminants which pose a threat to the environment and to the health of
local citizens. The June 1988 publication states that no public comments
have been received. Since that writing, a meeting took place on June 13,
1988 in which public opinion was sought. In light of input from the
community and elected officials, have any portions of the action plan been
altered?
Before the Record of Decision is submitted, I request that the EPA:
1) change the Proposed Remedial Action Plan to clean up the site and
properly dispose of these toxic materials; and 2) conduct a more comprehen-
sive study on the presence of cadmium and other contaminants in local
backyards and that results of this study be made known to area residents.
I appreciate your attention to this matter of vital importance, and I
am anxiously awaiting your response to my requests.
"•^
.,.*"
Very truly yours,
Mary B. Goodhue
Senator, 37th District
cc: Thomas C. Jorling
Commissioner, NYS DEC
MBG/sd
-------
• UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
v
'jf REGION II
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK NEW YORK 10278
A
AUG 3 0
Honorable Mary B. Goodhue
New York State Senator
226 East Main Street
Mt. Kisco, NY 10549
•
Dear Senator Goodhue:
This is in response to your August 5, 1988 letter regarding
the Marathon Battery Company Superfund site, located in Cold
Spring, New York.
The Marathon Battery Company site includes a former nickel-
cadmium battery manufacturing facility, the Hudson River in
the vicinity of the Cold Spring pier, and a series of river
backwater areas known as East Foundry Cove, West Foundry Cove,
and Constitution Marsh.
'•.*»
You express concern in your letter over' the adequacy of a
"clay-lined vault in an asphalt pit" to prevent the leaching
of cadmium from the sediments that were dredged from Foundry
Cove in the early 1970s. You should note, however, that the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed remedy
weighed many technical considerations regarding the construc-
tion of the vault and the potential for cadmium to migrate
off-site. We noted that the vault was constructed of one foot
of clay on the sides and bottom, and six inches on the top.
Also, the entire structure, which is located approximately
ten feet above the water table, and below the frost line, is
enclosed in two inches of asphalt. In addition, a gas ventila-
tion system was installed to vent any gases that are generated
as a result of microbial degradation of organic material in
the sediments. While this structure is not, as you noted, a
state-of-the-art containment facility by today's standards,
based upon our sampling results, it appears to be containing
the sediments.
While the vault appears to be an adequate on-site containment
system, EPA is evaluating all public comments concerning the
proposed remedy and, in particular, the long-term maintenance
requirements and level of protection provided by the vault.
All evaluation criteria, such as community acceptance and
permanence, will be considered further before EPA selects a
remedy for this portion of the site.
-------
-2-
To answer your question pertaining to monitoring of the ground-
water, BPA and the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation will enter into a formal agreement in Which the
State will guarantee the performance of future monitoring.
Appropriate federal and state groundwater standards will be
utilised for this sampling program.
Zn the past* BPA collected soil samples from the residential
yards adjacent to the former battery facility to determine
whether off-site migration of heavy metal contamination from
the site had occurred, and whether it posed an immediate
health threat to the residents. As noted in your letter,
release of the data was inadvertently delayed. These data,
which indicate no immediate health threat, were discussed
with area residents at a June 13, 1988 public meeting.
Following the public meeting, the data and an explanation of
it were forwarded to the residents whose yards were sampled.
Zn your letter, you suggest that additional sampling of the
residential yards be performed. As part of the remedial
design, intensive sampling of the adjacent residential yards
will be performed to determine the extent of the soils requiring
remediation. .-.
f*
Should you have any questions, please contact me, or have
your -staff contact Jeane Roaianaki of the Office of External
Programs at (212) 264-7834.
Sincerely,
William J. Muszynski, P.K.
Acting Regional Administrator
cci Thomas C. Jorling, Convisaioner
Hew York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
bcci Alice Green, A-101
-------
M. O'AMATO
Hinted States Rotate
WASHINGTON, DC 20810
TO: EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10007
FROM: Alfonse M. D'Amato
United States Senator
Because of the desire of this office to be
responsive to all inquiries and communications,
your consideration of .the attached is requested.
PLEASE TRY TO RESPOND WITHIN 4 WEEKS OF YOUR
RECEIPT OF THIS REQUEST. YOUR FINDINGS AMD VIEWS,
IN DUPLICATE, ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF THIS MEMO,
WILL BE APPRECIATED.
SEND ALL CORRESPONDENCE ON THIS MATTER
DIRECTLY TO MY NEW YORK CITY OFFICE, SEVEN PBNN
PLAZA, SEVENTH AVENUE, SUITE 600, NEW YORK, NEW
YORK, 10001.
Thank you.
AD:omp
-------
20 Constitution Drive
Cold Spring, N.Y. 10516
July 3,1988
The Honorable Alphonse D'Araato
1 Penn Plaza
Hew York, N. Y. 10001
Dear Sir:
The Marathon Battery site In Cold Spring-on-Hudson, N^Y. is
rated number 6 on the Superfund list of hazardous sites \
scheduled for clean-up. On June 13, 1988, the residents or1
Phillpstown met with representatives of the EPA in a public^
forum for discussion of the most recent findings of the ongoing
study of the site. *&
$
At this meeting, the results of testing done on the factory
site itself were detailed and the Proposed Remedial Action Plan
was released for public comment. The plan of action is to be
finalized in the spring of 1989.
At this time, we, the residents of Constitution Drive, which
is adjacent to the contaminated property, are seeking your
assistance in our request to the EPA to speed up the
investigation. Ve have been waiting for answers since the
winter of 1984. If this site is as dangerous as we have been
led to believe, why has the urgency to protect public health
been neglected by the EPA dragging out this investigation for
years?
Ve were unofficially told at the June 13 meeting that there
is a high contamination level of cadmium in several backyards
along Constitution Drive. Ve are outraged by the lack of
communication from the EPA and feel it is about time we were
given facts without waiting for a public meeting. to
c •
The Village of Cold Spring and surrounding Philipstown fe
residents have signed a petition requesting that the EPA ~"
reconsider the decision of "No Action" involving the vault
contains cadmium dredged from the Hudson River in 1974. Ve feel
the vault should not be left on the property for future 3
monitoring because ,the past 15 years have shown no monitoring^
systems and total .neglect of the property above the vault. F
O
Ve have been patient for four years but have had it and beg
your Influence on our/behalf to get the Superfund working for
the good of the people.
Please help!
Sincerely yours,
Constitution Drive Residents
-------
C . C. A. R . T .
Concerned Citizens About Renoving Toxins
20 Constitution Drive
Cold Spring, IT 10516
July 5, 1988
Magalie Beausejour, Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
26 Federal Plaza, Room 23-102
New York, New York 10278
Dear Ms. Beausejour:
Ve are writing to you to comment concerning the EPA proposed
remedial action plan for the Marathon Battery site.
Ve do not agree with any of the EPA's choices regarding the
dredge vault as remedy to the site.
•
Ve disagree with alternative V-l, no action, for a number of
reasons. It appears the decision is based solely on price and
not on the effects of the vault becoming compromised. In the 15
years since the vault was constructed, there? has been absolutely
no maintenance save for one grass cutting. " There is no reason
to believe that this will change. Asphalt and clay are not
Impervious to root and vegetation damage. Damage may already be
done to the vault since it has been 21 months since its last
inspection. Posting of signs and Installing fences are not a
guarantee of safety. The signs which were erected in the cove
and marsh area are Illegible after less than 24 months and
fences are r.o longer a deterrent to vandalism.
The danger to health for the Cold Spring area and
surrounding communities such as Beacon, Garrison, and the entire
Philipstown area as a whole will not be lessened by no action.
Ve. the citizens on the attached petitions, demand that the
EPA adopt option V-6 as the preferred.option for the dredge
spoils vault. • •
IO LOHGER VILLIHG TO VAIT FOR ANSWERS,
C.C.A.R.T.
rc:Alphonse D'Araato
r.inlel P. Moynihan
Hamilton Fish
M.JI y C. Goodhue
George Pataki
feter C. Alexanderson
-------
AUG 23 1988
Honorable Alfonso D'Amato
United States Senator
Seven Penn Plaza, Suite 600
Seventh Avenue
New York, New York 10001
Dear Senator D'Amatoi
This is a follow-up to my August 9, 1988 letter regarding the
Marathon Battery Company Superfund site, located in Cold
Spring, New York.
The Marathon Battery Company site includes a former nickel-
cadmium battery manufacturing facility, the Hudson River in
the vicinity of the Cold Spring pier, and a series of river
backwater areas known as East Foundry Cove, West Foundry Cove,
and Constitution Marsh. There are presently 799 Superfund sites
on the National Priorities List (NPL); the-Marathon Battery
Company site is ranked number 715. *'
In your letter, you indicate that your constituents have
complained about the extensive delay in remediating the
site. Admittedly, the ongoing investigation of this site
has taken a number of years to perform. But because the
affected area is over 400 acres, and because of the bioaccumu-
lative nature of cadmium, the primary contaminant of concern
at this site, the ongoing investigation has been a very complex
and time-consuming undertaking. To determine the full extent
of contamination present, and what threat this contamination
poses to public health and the environment, over 1,200 biota,
surface water, sediment, groundwater, dust, air, and soil
samples have been collected, analyzed, and evaluated since
the field work commenced in the spring of 1984. Our consultant
has also performed extensive laboratory testing to evaluate
various treatment alternatives for addressing the heavy metal
contamination present in the East Foundry Cove sediments and
on- and off-site soils. In addition, two remedial investiga-
tion/feasibility study (RI/FS) reports have been prepared to
define the nature and extent of the contamination and to
identify and evaluate remedial alternatives for two portions
of the site.
-------
-2-
Based upon the results of the first RI/FS, in Septamber 1986,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) selected a remedy
for the East Foundry Cove Marsh/Constitution Marsh portion of
the site* This remedy, which involves removal of the contam-
inated sediments, followed by chemical fixation and off-site
disposal, is currently under design. It is anticipated that
this design will be completed in the spring of 1989.
The second RI/FS, pertaining to the former battery facility
portion of the site, was the subject of a June 13, 1988
public meeting in Cold Spring. At this public meeting, my
staff discussed the preferred remedy, which was identified
as decontamination of the former battery facility, excavation
and chemical fixation of the heavy metal-contaminated soils
on the former battery facility grounds and adjacent residen-
tial yards, excavation and thermal treatment of on-site soils
contaminated with volatile organica, and continued monitoring
of the groundwater and a dredge spoils vault containing cadmium-
contaminated sediments dredged from East Foundry Cove in the
early 1970s. The preference for no action other than long-term
monitoring of dredge spoils vault was not based upon cost
alone, as was concluded by the Concerned Citizens About
Removing Toxins. No action for the vault was suggested because,
based upon EPA's evaluation of the results from the groundwater
monitoring wells installed around the vault', which showed no
detectable levels of cadmium, as well as an evaluation of the
vault's design plans and specifications, the vault appears to
be constructed in such a manner so as to prevent the release
of the contaminated sediments to the environment.
While the vault appears to be an effective containment system,
and leaving it in—place does not appear to pose an immediate
threat to public health or the environment, other evaluation
criteria, such as community acceptance and permanence, will
be considered further before EPA selects a remedy for this
portion of the site.
In the past, EPA collected soil samples from residential
yards adjacent to the former battery facility to determine
whether off-site migration of heavy metal contamination from
the site had occurred, and whether it posed an immediate health
threat to the residents; As noted in your letter, release of
the data was inadvertently delayed. These data, which indicate
no immediate health threat, were discussed with area residents
at the June 13, 1988 public meeting. Following the public
meeting, the data and an explanation of it were forwarded to
the residents whose yards had been sampled.
-------
-3-
Should you have any questions, please contact me, or have
your staff contact Jeane Rosianski of my staff at (212) 264-7834.
Sincerely
Willia» J. MusBynski," P.E.
Acting Regional Administrator
cci Thomas C. Jorling, Conmissioner
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
beet Alice Greene, A-101
-------
DAN:EL ?. MCY?::HAN
N"W YORK
u.s
UNITED STATES SENATE
Date; JUL 19 1998
Respectfully referred to
for such consideration as the enclosed nay
warrant. Please send me your written response
in duplicate along with the letter from my
constituent.
Sincerely,
United States\enate
Mark to the attention of: Hs' Tiza D" TJo^0adisumarto :
Office of Senator
Daniel P. Moynihan
733 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017
(212) 661-5150
C/3
CO
OO
en T" "
W ' T_i
-------
4 Depot Square
Cold Spring, New York
July 9, 1988
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
733 Third Ave
New York, Kew York
Dear Senator hoynihan,
I live in a small village called Cold Spring New York, about 60 miles
north of New York City. We are located in the dramatic heart of the Hudson
Valley. Many people come here to visit and enjoy the spectacular scenery,
beautiful surroundings and learn about the historical legends that have followed
us for centuries. •
Cold Spring is noted as being one of New Yorks Historical landmarks.
This preservation is a vital and integral part of maintaining our existence
with an optomistic future. It is the examination of the quality of life in our
environment that will be an ongoing effort to strive for a successful future
for ourselves and our children.
I am writing to you about some major concerns that have to do with
environmental hazards and risks to Public Health Safety within our community and
surrounding areas. Therrhave been alot of instances during the past 30 years
which have not been brought to public attention. Many people have been exposed to
unacceptable levels of cadmium toxins. Some of these toxins have been found in
noil samples taken from the yards of family homes on Constitution Drive, Cold Spring
and extremely high levels in the vicinity of Foundry Cove, and Constitution Marsh
Sanctuary on the Hudson River. Along the shores of the Hudson has been established
no me of Americas most earliest history. We have come so far as to destroy one
of our most plentiful natural resources. "
Cn June 13th 1988 I attended a horrifying meeting with theEPA and citizens
of Cold Spring and Phllipstown concerning the Sonotone Marathon Battery Co. Site.
Enclosed you will find some information about the heavy contaminant levels of toxins
which are encapsuled in a so called vault made of clay and asphalt, buried in the
ground just a short distance -from family homes on Constitution Drive here in Cold
::pr1n/% v/e have not only contaminated our River but also a large surface area in the
mirtst of our community.
I assume the vault was put there as a remedy back in 1973 during the
dredging period of Foundry Cove. It has posed an on going threat over all-of these
years especially during the dredging period when these contaminants were placed
on the parking lot grounds of this Marathon plant where they were,-left to dry out
for 2 months before actual placement in the vault in 1973- Innocent people have
-------
witnessed and been exposed to these toxins in the past with no mention of the extreme
dangers involved . As you know you have recieved copies of the petti tion signed by
100 's of area residents who demand removal of this haphazard commodity called the
vault which contains 5.000 cubic yards of toxic cadmium sediment. Too many events
of inferior quality have become mistakes with high- risks involved. Cadmium poisoning
is known to be a human carcinogenic either in high concentrations for short periods of
time and in low doses for long periods of time. * Scientists believe the health
hazards associated with long term low level exposure in the environment may be the
more serious of the two.
Now in 1988 the Marathon Co. Site sits unattended, improperly monitored,
and is a site which has not been maintained for almost 10 years. This heavily
overgrown area has also become a very serious fire threat that which we have just
most recently become aware. Considering the EPA has finally decided to inform us
of this danger.
I am beginning to believe that the EFA itself needs monitoring. How can
they be 'trusted when they let a severe problem such as this get out of hand? We
are listed among the top ten most hazardous sites in the nation , number 6 on the
Superfund List. In the past we have not been adequately informed as to the dangers
around us . ^'
In recieving articles submitted by the EPA their informative updates have
been crirically behind, and thouroughly lacking in expertise as to the proposed
remedial measures suggested . Any measures taken are detrimental for the Public
Health and Safety of individuals in our community.
A small group of Cold Spring residents have formed and organization called
(J.C.A.R.T. " Concerned Citizens Actions to Remove Toxins ". WE wish to cooperate
with the proper channels involved in maintaining future Public Health Safety and to
rid our environment of highly unacceptable levels of cadmium Icxins found in
Foundry Cove, The Hudson River, Constitution Marsh Sanctuary and also the backyards
of family homes on Constitution Drive.
We are in desperate .need of your support to respond on behalf of our well
being. Thank you very much for your consideration.
!
Sincerly,
Antonia Garuf i
Secretary for C.C.A.R.T.
*• Taken from the Toxic Information Series issued by the EPA
Olfice.of Pesticides
ana toxic substances TS-793
-------
20 Constitution Drive
Cold Spring, N. Y. 10516
July 3,1988
The Honorable Daniel Patrick Hoynlhan
733 Third Ave.
New York, If. Y. 10017
Dear Sir:
The Marathon Battery site in Cold Spring-on-Hudson, N. Y. is
rated number 6 on the Superfund list of hazardous sites
scheduled for clean-up. On June 13, 1988, the residents of
Philipstown met with representatives of the EPA in a public
forum for discussion of the most recent findings of the ongoing
study of the site.
At this meeting, the results of testing done on the factory
site Itself were detailed and the Proposed Remedial Action Plan
was released for public comment. The plan of action is to be
finalized in the spring of 1989.
At this time, we, the residents of Constitution Drive, which
is adjacent to the contaminated property, are seeking your
assistance in our request to the EPA to speed up the
investigation. Ve have been waiting for answers since the
winter of 1984. If this site is as dangerous as we have been
led to believe, why has the urgency to project public health
been neglected by the EPA dragging out thi§ investigation for
years?
Ve were unofficially told at the June 13 meeting that there
is a high contamination level of cadmium in several backyards
along Constitution Drive. Ve are outraged by the lack of
communication from the EPA and feel it is about time we were
given facts without waiting for a public meeting.
• The Village of Cold Spring and surrounding Philipstown
residents have signed a petition requesting that the EPA
reconsider the decision of "No Action" involving the vault which
contains cadmium dredged from the Hudson River in 1974. Ve feel
the vault should not be left on the property for future
monitoring because the past 15 years have shown no monitoring
systems and total neglect of the property above the vault.
Ve have been patient for four years but have had it and beg
your influence on our behalf to get the Superfund working for
the good of the people.
Please help!
Sincerely yours,
Constitution Drive Residents
-------
C . C . A. R . T .
Concerned Citizens About Removing Toxins
20 Constitution Drive
Cold Spring, HY 10516
July 5, 1988
Magalle Beausejour, Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency and.Remedial Response Division
26 Federal Plaza, Room 23-102
New York, Hew York 10278
Dear Ms. Beausejour:
Ve are writing-to you to comment concerning the EPA proposed
remedial action plan for the Marathon Battery site.
Ve do not agree with any of the EPA's choices regarding the
dredge vault as remedy to the site.
•
Ve disagree with alternative V-l, no action, for a number of
reasons. It appears the decision is based solely on price and
not on the effects of the vault becoming compromised. In the 15
years since the vault was constructed, there has been absolutely
no maintenance save for one grass cutting. There is no reason
to believe that this will change. Asphalt and clay are not
Impervious to root and vegetation damage. Damage may already be
done to the vault since it has been 21 months since its last
inspection. Posting of signs and Installing fences are not a
guarantee of safety. The signs which were erected in the cove
and marsh area are illegible after less than 24 months and
ff»nc«?s are r.o longer a deterrent to vandalism.
The danger to health for the Cold Spring area and
surrounding communities such as Beacon, Garrison, and the entire
Fhilipstown area as a whole will not be lessened by no action.
Ve, the citizens on the attached petitions, demand that the
EPA adopt option V-6 as the preferred option for the dredge
spot Is vault.
HO LONGER VILLING TO VAIT FOR ANSVERS,
C.C.A.R.T.
oc:A 1phonse D'Araato
1'aiM.el P. Moynihan
Hamilton Fish
M*i y C. Goodhue
George Pataki
Peter C. Alexanderson
-------
fED S • ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A .NCY
AU6 23 1988
Honorable Daniel Patrick Moyuihau
Uniteo atates senator
7JJ Third Avenue
hew Xorn, at 10017
Dear bena tor tioyninani
This io in response- to your July 13 and July 19, IsfUu letters
written on Lenal! of the residents of Constitution Drive and
Antonia darufi, respectively, re^ardiny tho i-iaratnon 3attery
Conpany tfuperfund situ, located in Cold bpriny, NOW Xork.
The Haratnon battery Company site includes a former nickel-
cadmium battery manufacturing facility, the hudson aiver in
tne vicinity of the Cold Spring pior, and * series of rivor
aackwater areas known ac Last Foundry Cove,;.5».oat Foundry Cove,
and Constitution rtaroh. Ti.ero are presently 79^ Superfunu sites
on tne National Priorities List} the Marathon battery Company
site is rankttc
In your constituents' letters, they complain that tho
Snvironi;*ncai rj.wt«ctiCi'i rv^ency (Li'A) is "drayyins out" tne
investigation r.i: tiiia site. Acu. ittouiy, Li*« oi.^oiivj inves-
tigation oi tnio silo has tahen a number of years to ^crton;..
but oecausw tno diiJLuctec area is ovor <*wO acres, anu bocauae
01 the bioaccunulative nature ot uailriun, t.ic i>rii..ary contaminant
of concern at tiiis site, tho oiujoin^ inveati^atior. hoii been a
very co».ip3o>. tu;u tiue-consui.iinii uncertakiny. To ueterr.iine the
full extent oi." «7onta^u.»utiori prouent, and what tnrcat this
contamination pos&s to uublic health and the environnenu,
over 1,2CO biota, surface vat-»c, £.tui._^»,»., yrou;.^vater, dust,
air, and coil sainplea have ^ton collrctt^d, analyzed, and oval
since the tiol'd wcirK coira.ier.ceu in t.ic suiir.«j of ITj^. our
coneultant has also pfertor..tea extensive laboratory teatiny to
evaluate various treatment alternatives ior addro'se»inij the
heavy wetal contamination ^resent in Lust touncry Cove sedisvie
and-on and off-site aoils. In addition, cr.c reiaodial invosti-jation/
feasibility atuay (KI/fb) reportJ:; nave been ^reparau to
define the nature ami extent oi tne con tfawi nation and to
identity anu evaluate ro;:,oi.icil «ilttjrnativt-a for two portions
of tho site.
-------
-2-
Baseti upon the results of the first RI/FS, in September 1986,
EPA selected a remedy for the East Foundry Cove Marsh/Consti-
tution Marsh portion of the site* This remedy, which involves
removal of the contaminated sediments, followed by chemical
fixation and off-site disposal, is currently under design*
It is anticipated that this design will be completed in the
spring of 1989.
The second RI/FS, pertaining to the former battery facility
portion of the site, was the subject of the June 13, 1988
public meeting referenced in your constituents' letters*
At this public meeting, ray staff discussed the preferred
remedy, which was identified as decontamination of the former
battery facility, excavation and chemical fixation of the
heavy metal-contaminated soils on the former battery facility
grounds and adjacent residential yards, excavation and thermal
treatment of on-site soils contaminated with volatile organics,
and continued monitoring of the groundwater and a dredge spoils
vault containing cadmium-contaminated sediments dredged from
East Foundry Cove in the early 1970s* No action for the vault
was suggested because, based upon EPA's evaluation of the re*
suits from the groundwater monitoring wells installed around
the vault, which showed no detectable levels of cadmium, as
well as an evaluation of the vault's design plans and speci-
fications, the vault appears to be constructed in such a manner
so as to prevent the release of the contaminated sediments to
the environment.
While the vault appears to be an effective containment system,
and leaving it in-place does not appear to pose^an immediate
threat to public health or the environment, other evaluation
criteria, such as community acceptance and permanence, will
be considered further before EPA selects a remedy for this
portion of the site.
In the past, EPA collected soil samples from residential
yards adjacent to the former battery facility to determine
whether off-site migration of heavy metal contamination from
the site had occurred, and if present, whether it posed an
immediate health threat to the residents. As noted in your
letter, release of the data was inadvertently delayed* These
data, which indicate no Immediate health threat, were discussed
with area residents at the June 13, 1988 public meeting.
-------
-J-
nv, th« public :.«etln.;r tha data *nd an explanation of
it wer.i fcrvardad to tho r«slc3cntc whose yard a w«r« aaaplad*
< *
.Ibould you hav«| any queatlona* pl«*a« contact a«« or hay*
your staff contact J«an« Kcaianati of th« OCfic* of
(212) 2*4-7*34.
it'll 11 an J. Cuotynakl, P.t.
Action Pfegional Adolniatrator
cci Thonas C. Jorlirtg, Conaioaicner
York State Dcp*rtnant of
Lnvironiaantal Conservation
bcci Alico Green, .\-lCl
-------
THE ASSEMBLY
STATE OF NEW YORK
ALBANY Commmeeon
^L"ts^1^ ' Environmental Conservation
RANKING MINORITY MEMBE!
ALBANY
GEORGE EQPATAK, COMMITTEES
Awemblymangist District Way. 4 Mean,
/ DISTRICT OFFICES Labor
B Crossroads Shopping Center • July 20 1988 Ethics
PeekskHtNew York 10566 * ' AL8ANY OFFICE
(914)739-2150 Q Room534
3 1 Freeland Street Legislative Office Building
Monroe. New York 10950 Albany. New York 12248
(914)783-2513 (518)455-4166
EPA
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10278
SI !(*(**
Dear Sirs:
I represent the Village of Cold Spring and am writing in
connection of the Marathon^Battery Superfund site in the Village
of Cold Spring, County of Putnam in New York State.
Neighbors of the site are concerned about the extensive delay in
taking action to clean up and remediate the site, and
particularly the lack of communication concerning possible
contamination to the backyards and adjacent properties of
residents near the site on Constitution Drive.
I would appreciate your advising me of the status of this matter
and also of whether any testing or test results can be provided.
In addition, can better communications be established so that the
residents of Constitution Drive can be better informed, and do
not have to live in fear? *
Thank you for your prompt attention., to this most important
matter.
Very truly yours,
GEORGE E. PATAKI
GEP/aos Member of Assembly
-------
UNITED-STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIC AGENCY
AUG* 2 6 1988
Honorable George E. Pataki
New York State Assemblyman
Crossroads Shopping Center
Peekskill, NY 10566
Dear Mr . Pataki.
This is in response to your July 20, 1988 letter regarding
the Marathon Battery Company Superfund site, located in Cold
Spring, New York.
The Marathon Battery Company site includes a former nickel-
cadmium battery manufacturing facility, the Hudson River in
the vicinity of the Cold Spring pier, and a series of river
backwater areas known as East Foundry Cove, West Foundry Cove,
and Constitution Marsh.
In your letter, you indicate that your constituents have
complained about the extensive delay in remediating the
site. Admittedly, the ongoing investigation of this site
has taken a number of years to perform. But because the
affected area is over 400 acres, and because of the bioaccumu-
lative nature of cadmium, the primary contaminant of concern
at this site, the ongoing investigation has be^en a very complex
and time-consuming undertaking . To determine* the full extent
of contamination present, and what threat this contamination
poses to public health and the environment, over 1,200 biota,
surface water, sediment, groundwater, dust, air, and soil
samples have been collected, analyzed, and evaluated since
the field work commenced in the spring of 1984 . Our consultant
has also performed extensive laboratory testing to evaluate
various treatment alternatives for addressing the heavy metal
contamination present in the East Foundry Cove ^sediments and
on- and off-site soils. In addition, two remedial investiga-
tion/feasibility study (RI/FS) reports have been prepared to
define the nature and extent of the contamination and to
identify and evaluate remedial alternatives for two portions
of the site .
Based upon the results of the first RI/FS, in September 1986,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) selected a remedy
for the East Foundry Co;ve. Marsh/Constitution Marsh portion of
the site. This remedy, which involves removal of the contam-
inated sediments, followed by chemical fixation and off-site
disposal, is currently under design. It is anticipated that
this design will be completed in the spring of 1989 .
-------
-2-
The second RI/FS, pertaining to the former battery facility
portion of the site, was the subject of a June 13, 1988
public meeting in Cold Spring. At this public meeting, my
staff discussed the preferred remedy, which was identified
as decontamination of the former battery facility, excavation
and chemical fixation of the heavy metal-contaminated soils
on the former battery facility grounds and adjacent residen-
tial yards, excavation and thermal treatment of on-site soils
contaminated with volatile organics, and continued monitoring
of the groundwater and a dredge spoils vault containing cadmium-
contaminated sediments dredged from East Foundry Cove in the
early 1970s .
At this time, we -are evaluating the comments received on the
RI/FS and proposed remedy . We anticipated selecting a remedy
for this portion of the site by September 30, 1988.
In the past, EPA collected soil samples from residential yards
adjacent to the former battery facility to determine whether
off-site migration of heavy metal contamination from the site
had occurred, and if present, whether it posed an immediate
health threat to the residents . As noted in your letter,
release of the data was inadvertently delayed. These data,
which indicate no immediate health threat, were discussed
with area residents at the June 13, 1988 piiblic meeting.
Following the public meeting, the data and an explanation of f
it were forwarded to the residents whose yards had been sampled.
In your letter, you ask that "better communications be
established so that the residents of Constitution Drive
can be better informed." Please note, however, that a very
active and ongoing community relations program has been estab-
lished for this site. Numerous public meetings and informal
information sessions have been held over the past few years .
In addition, fact sheets have been provided to the public
throughout the project. We believe, that, with the exception
of the residential yard sample results, all vital information
has, and will continue to be, disseminated to the public in a
timely manner :
-------
-3-
Should you have any questions, please contact me, or have
your staff contact Stephen Luftig of my staff at (212) 264-8672
Sincerely,
William J. Muszynski, P-E .
Acting Regional•Administrator
cc: Thomas C. Jorling. Commissioner
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
bcc: CCO
-------
„.,«.»* -,;.o«"" JUDICIAL COMMIT*
VICE CHAIRMAN
WA1MMGIOM 0««.^l tUKOMMinil CW MONO»Ol«l
MID COWMIKIM L*W
Congress or the Hinted States
House of Hepresentarioei
•I WAJIWH- -on irwrr w.w—• •>• uvvfi V.VVIIVUI.IWVM wneoawrrM o»
. wrutoi .__ .. CMMMAi Art nei
fw"itM'4Moi° Washington, BC 20511
JOINT ECONOMIC
COMMITTEE
70 GUHtOA AVf NUf
1 Qflfl VKf CNAMMAH.
J.7OO MWVOMtTtrt MFUCUCUI
COMCMtMOMAl MUGATKM
MCVTM* COMMTTtf«
1001 MMM MAO MMV *TUOT COHMWHCI
•nw**T omMAnoMM. urtytn
L *T I2**O . • • COWONifUOMAl AIT*
t |*I4| tt4-*m CAUCM
Honorable Christopher J. Daggett
Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Dear Mr. Daggett:
I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with the EPA's
handling of the Marathon Battery Superfund Site in Cold Spring
New York.
The EPA has neglected to inform the residents of Constitu-
tion Drive, who own property adjacent to the Battery facility,
of the results of soil and water sampling taken on their property
in July, 1986. My office has been in contact with Mr. Joel
Singerman of the EPA, who informed my staff that at last the
residents on Constitution Drive will receive the results of the
testing done on their own property. The two-year delay in
notifying the home owners of the amount of contamination on
their property is inexcusable. The EPA is, futhermore, „
neglecting its responsibility to those residents by now sending
them tests which were done two years ago. Testing should be
taken on those properties, and be inanediately reported to the
home owners, so updated data is available.
I am dissappointed in the EPA's intent to take the no-action
alternative for the dredge spoils vault. I understand that the
Record of Decision has not been made yet and I am expecting that
the opinions .of the concerned citizens of Cold Spring will
influence the EPA's final decision. I encourage the EPA to give
every consideration to the citizens' concerns regarding the
vault.
-------
Honorable C.J. Daggett
July 22, 1988
Page 2
Your immediate attention to these matters is greatly
appreciated. In the future, I will be hoping to see a more
responsible and conscientious effort on behalf of Cold Spring
residents. Thank you for your time and consideration.
With every best wish, I am,
Sincerely,
Hamilton Fish, Jr.
Member of Congress
HF:hw
cc Maga-lie Beausejour
Joel Singerman
Honorable Barbara A. Murphy
Caroline Krebs
Concerned Citizens of Cold Spring
Antonia Garufi #
Honorable Roger Chirico •*'
-------
UNll^J STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT, . AGENCY
AUG 2 6 1988
Honorable Hamilton Fish, Jr.
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Fish:
This is in response to your July 22, 1988 letter regarding
the Marathon Battery Company Superfund site, located in Cold
Spring, New York.
The Marathon Battery Company site includes a former nickel-
cadmium battery manufacturing facility, the Hudson River in
the vicinity of the Cold Spring pier, and a series of river
backwater areas-known as East Foundry Cove, West Foundry Cove,
and Constitution Marsh.
In your letter, you express concern regarding the preferred
remedy for the on-site dredge spoils vault which contains
cad.mium-contaminated sediments dredged from East Foundry Cove
in the early 1970s. No action for the vault was suggested
because, based upon the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) evaluation of the results from the groundwater monitoring
wells installed around the vault, which showed no detectable
levels of cadmium, as well as an evaluation^ of the vault's
design plans and specifications, the vault* appears to be
constructed in such a manner so as to prevent the release of
the contaminated sediments to the environment.
While the vault appears to be an effective containment system,
and leaving it in-place does not appear to pose an immediate
threat to public health or the environment, other evaluation
criteria, such as community acceptance and permanence, will
be considered further before EPA selects a remedy for this
portion of the site.
In the past, EPA collected soil samples from the residential
yards adjacent to the former battery facility to determine
whether off-site migration of heavy metal contamination from
the site had occurred, and whether it posed an immediate health
threat to the residents. As noted in your letter, release of
the data was inadvertently delayed. These data, which indicate
no immediate health'threat, were discussed at a June 13, 1988
public meeting. Following the public meeting, the data and
an explanation of it were forwarded to the residents whose
yards were sampled.
In your letter, you suggest that additional sampling of the
residential yards be performed.
-------
-2-
Aa part of the reaadial design, intensive sampling of the
adjacent residential yards will be performed to determine tha
axtant of tha soils requiring remediation.
Should you have any quastiona, plaaaa contact mm, or hava
your ataff contact Jaana Roaianaki of tha Offioa of Extarnal
Progra»a at (212) 264-7834.
Siooaraly,
William J. Mu»»yn«Xi, P.E.
Acting Rational Adminiatrator
eoi Thoaaa C. Jorling, Coaodaalonar
Haw York Stata Dapartaant of
BnvironMantal Consarvation
bees Alice Greene, A-101
-------
4 Depot Square
Cold Spring, New York
August 18, 1988
Ms. Magalie Beausejour
Project Manager Marathon Co. Site
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency Remedial Response Division
26 Federal Plaza, Rm 23-102
New York) New York
Dear Ms. Beausejour,
Through discussions with the DEC, EPA, and Cold Spring residents at the
August llth meeting, concerned citizens of Cold Spring have reason to believe that
emissions discharged through a roof top ventinjsystem, coming from the battery plant
facility, while in operation, may have caused some of the migration found to be on the
surface in the yards of family homes on Constitution Drive. For this reason we believe
it may have depended on which way the wind blew as to the direction that this migration
of cadmium, nickel substance was carried. Houses located on the opposite side of the
street on Kemble Avenue need soil sampling as well as the yards of houses on the uphill
side of the street in the vicinity of Wall Street, Furnace Street, Marion Avenue and
Benedict Street. These areas mentioned must be taken into consideration.
Even more importantly is the information we have received^oncerning the storm sewer
drainage on the corner of Kemble Avenue and Rock Street. This storm sewer drainage vent
had overflow problems during heavy rains and possibly during times when the plantr.was in
operation and effluent was passing through these pipes below. There was mention also made
that the system may have been damaged by the use of different chemicals and acids which
may have deteriorated the pipeline. A Mr. Frank Scalzo lives on 25 Kemble Avenue and
he mentions that his basement was flooded on several occasions through the years.
It is possible that surface runoff fom rainwater overflow may have carried particles
of discharged effluent downhill in the direction of Rock Street toward Main and on down.
This area should be added to the soil sampling grid. Rock Street - Main Street - Lynn
Terrace - and Depot Square. Other areas of immediate concern are houses located on
the opposite side of the street on Constitution Drive. Enclosed are adresses.
Concerned Citizens of Cold Spring are asking for an immediate response to these
concerns. The above reasons given need Immediate attention in order to establish whether
\
surface rainwater runoff of cadmium, nickel substances have migrated downhill from
Rock Street storm sewer overflow..
Please see : New York Dept. Environmental Conservation September 1985 document prepared
by Acres International Corporation. Norman H. Nosenchuck P.E. Directqr
-------
GS 9 para. 2
1953 to 1965 " the Wastewater treatment system " involved pumping of untreated
products into the Cold Spring Sewer System which was subsequently discharged inl
the Hudson River at the pier site. It is believed that the pier site was subjected
to a direct discharge of contaminants during the 1970's
Gs- 10 para. 2 The Main Street Storm Sewer was used to transport Marathon battery
effluent resulting in signifigantly elevated levels of cadmium, nickel, and cobaltp
in the Pier Site.
GS-5 para. 3
" From December 1971 until termination of the battery manufacturing operation
around March 1979 it is believed that waste water was discharged via the Village
Storm S&wer at the pier site. Also that equipment installation and operation
difficulties precluded the attainment of effluent discharge standards during 1975•"
These concerns add considerable areas and yards that need to be tested during
soil sampling stages of Phase II and III.
Over the years the continued use of different chemicals and acids, during the proces?
of discharge of this cadmium substance, may have caused the damage and deterioration
'3
of the storm sewer pipes which had to be replaced f If these pipes were crackeo^B
at any time during effluent discharge these contaminated substances may have been
carried through rainwater overflow of the storm sewer system. If this is true this
migration may be all along Rock Street and also Main Street.
Concerned citizens of Cold Spring have reason to believe that exposure to these
toxic elements was not c6nfined only to the workplace but that these chemicals
may have left residue in basements which were flooded due to storm sewer overflow.
The soils of Rock Street are of absolute priority for sampling. Please respond to
these staements. Thank you.
Sincerly,
JUT^
Antonia Garufi
-------
enjoymem of those H*O get pleasure from observing nature.
1 , STREET MAP
i NELSONVILLE
(see back page for ires map)
Complete GUIDE to the Cold Spring- Garrison Area
For General Information:
The Hudson River Valley Asstx
72 Main Street, Cold Spring, N
The Cold Spring Area Chambc
(914) 265-9060
West Point Visitors Bureau
(914) 938-4011
For Music and General P<
Bardavon 1869 Opera House
35 Market Street
Poughkeepsie, NY (914) 473-5
Howland Center for Cultural '
Cor. Main and Tioroiufci A- r
Beacon, NY (914) 831-4988
Paramount Center for the Art
1008 Brown Street
Peekskill, NY (9M) 739-2333
For History, Nature Stud}
BOSCOBEL Rt 90 |ust south of Cr
Spring, this excellent example
Federal residential architecture is op
to the public. Beautiful grounds ant
spectacular view of the Hudson, c
(914) 265-363a
CLARENCE FAHNESTOCK STA
PARK: Located on Rt. 301 betwt
Cold Spring and Carmel, this park
fers hlklnq, fishing, boating, camp
Call (914) 225-7207.
CONSTITUTION MARSH WILD L!
SANCTUARY: Located just south
Cold Spring on the Hudson. Cat
trips can be arranged by calling (J
265-3119. National Audubon Soc
operates this outstanding sanctue
FOUNDRY SCHOOL MUSEL
Located on Chestnut Street In C
Spring just south of the Butter!
Pharmacy. Housed in a 140-year
schoolhouse, it has all kinds of hist
exhibits, photos, books and items.
the Putnam County Historical Soc
at (914) 265-4010.
LcnRt. 9. t
-------
Concerned Citizens of Cold Spring would like to request that soil samples be taken
on the opposite side of the street on Constitution Drive where several houses were
missed. Especially in the vicinity where unacceptable levels up to 6? PPM wert^^
found. It is only proper that these other houses be considered as well, since
they are in the vicinity of the Marathon Battery Company Site. We do not feel very
comfortable living here without knowing the status of our yards. Ve do not know \f
we are at risk or not.
»
These concerns were conveyed to me by people who live on Constitution Drive.
I thank you for your consideration but would appreciate an explanation if the
answer is no. We would like to know why soil samples will not be taken on the
other side of the street on Constitution Drive.
Sincerly,
*, tfos^"*b.
Antonia Garufi
-------
^
fl
-------
-c
e
0
vO
V
0
(V
-' i i
p.
f
£'
«
\
\
*••!.•
rr^
{} f p^j |0 ^
s V
i IKovU
-------
| UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
' REGION II
*""•"* 26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10278
SEP 19 1988
Honorable Hamilton Fish, Jr.
Member. U.S. House of Representatives
Building 710
Stewart Airport
Newburgh, N.Y. 12550
Dear Mr. Fish:
This is in response to your constituent's August 18, 1986
letter and your August 26, 1988 letter regarding the Marathon
Battery Company Superfund site.
In her letter, Ms. Garufi expresses concern regarding the
extent of the contamination of soils in Cold Spring resulting
from heavy raeta1-contaminated air emissions from the battery
facility when it was in operation.
The Environmental Protection Agency collected soil samples
from residential yards located adjacent to the former battery
facility to determine whether off-site migration of heavy
metal-contaminated dust from the facility*had occurred, and
if present, whether it posed an immediate health threat to
area residents. While we were able to determine from the
data that an immediate health threat does not exist, we
recognize that additional soil sampling is necessary to
provide a more definitive characterization of the extent of
heavy metal contamination which has migrated from the site.
To satisfy these data needs, additional soil samples were
collected at various locations in the vicinity of the site in
early September 1988. In addition, as part of the remedial
design, intensive sampling of the site and the adjacent
residential yards will be undertaken.
The storm sewer system underlying Main Street was used to
transport the.battery facility's process wastes to the Hudson
River. Ms. .Garufi expresses concern about the possibility
that heavy metaT contamination from the facility may have
been released to the environment via a rupture in, or
overflow from the storm sewer system.
Based upon information' provided by Village of Cold Spring
officials, it is our understanding that a portion of the Main
Street sewer line deteriorated and was replaced in the early
1980s. In August 1988, we reviewed the Village's sewerline
plans, and discussed with Village officials the sewerline
break. We will, in the next few weeks, sample the soils in
the vicinity of the sewerline break to determine whether this
rupture contaminated the soils in the vicinity of the break.
-------
-2-
Ue were unaware of any overflow problems associated with the
sewer system until Ms. Garufi expressed concern in her
letter. Ue have asked our consultant to Investigate this,
and to determine whether the break in the sewer line may have
resulted in the contamination of any residents' basements.
Ue will keep you informed of the results of our ongoing
investigations.
Should you have any questions, please contact me, or have
your staff contact Jeane Rosianski of my staff at (212) 264-
7834.
Sincerely
"Uilliara J. Muszynski, P.E.
Acting Regional Administrator
cc: Thomas C. Jorling, Commissioner
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
bcc: Alice Greene, A-101
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY MEMO
TO: Ms. Magalie Beausejour
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection \gency
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FROM: James P. Rod
Manager, Constitution Marsh Sanctuary
National Audubon Society
RFD 12, Rt. 9D
Garrison, NY 10524
RE: Draft RI/FS, Marathon Battery Company Site
(Former Battery Plant Grounds)
Cold Spring, NY
DATE: May 16, 1988
Following are my comments on the Draft Supplemental RI/FS:
RI - page 11-1. Ecosystem of Constitution Marsh. I do not "fear
that some alternatives, such as dredging East Foundry Cove, would
permanently damage Constitution Marsh." In fact, I believe, that
a thorough dredging of East Foundry Cove, preferably to 10 ppm,
is the best way to protect Constitution Marsh from additional
cadmium contamination, assuming that proper barriers are
constructed to keep suspended sediments 'contained within East
Foundry Cove during dredging, and that tidal flows are not
interrupted.
RI - page 5-25. Integrity of Dredge Spoils Vault. The dredge
spoils vault is presumed to be intact based upon results from
monitoring wells VI through V5. This conclusion is based partly
upon detection limits which may be too high. A more sensitive
analysis might detect some leakage. Further, even if the vault
is still perfectly intact, (which may well be the case after only
13 years), at our April 20 meeting at EPA headquarters, I recall
a statement to the effect that the expected life of such a vault
is on the order of 30 years. Since the vault was inadequately
monitored (probably not monitored at all) during its first ten
years, since 'future monitoring'may not be perfect, and since no
one knows wha\t eventual use may be made of the battery plant
grounds and building.,once cleanup is complete, it seems to make
sense to me to remove the vault and its potential threat while
equipment and personnel, are in place. I assume it will be easier
to dispose of the vault while it is intact, rather than wait
until it actually starts'leaking.
m - page 6-22. Conclusion. After treatment with the Chemfix
process ..."treated metal contaminated soil can be considered as
non-hazardous waste." Can Chemfix Technologies, Inc. guarantee
the wastes to remain non-hazardous forever?
-------
Page two
National Audubon RI/FS comments
-£ RI - page 7-27. Inhalation of Funes During a Fire Event. I am
no., sure that I fully understand this section and the information
presented on the vaporization temperature of cadmium and the
ig..ition point of paper on page 7-18. Just because paper burns
at 454 degrees F. ( according to Ray Bradbury, whose famous
science fiction novel concerning the destruction of books in a
futuristic society, Fahrenheit 451. paper burns at 3 degrees less
than Ebasco's figure, but I won't quibble) doesn't necessarily
mean that a warehouse fire burns no hotter than that temperature.
I have seen building fires that melted glass and twisted steel
girders, none of which happens at 454 degrees. 'Whether such
fires get hot enough to vaporize cadmium, I am not sure. I am
concerned (as is the Cold Spring Fire Department, as you recall
from the meeting we attended in the Firehouse) that the high
winds generated by a raging fire may cause the cadmium dust to be
precipitated over a wide area downwind of the fire.
On that subject, on page 7-28, top, last sentence, concerning the
amount of dust in a worst-case event, "Persons.. .could not be
exposed to this level of particulates and be expected to breath
(breathe) for any length of time." Does this mean that firemen
and nearby residents need not be concerned about cadmium
poisoning because they will merely suffocate instead? If,
indeed, there is no particular toxic threat in case of a fire,
have you so informed the Cold Spring Fire Department?
,**
5 Feasibility Study, page 2-25. Truck. If the treated wastes to
be transported are non-hazardous, why must trucks be
decontaminated and why must special permits for hauling hazardous
materials be obtained?
fa FS page 2-26. Train. The elimination of this transportation
alternative is premature, as I have attempted to explain before.
While it is true that the railroad on the western edge of the
site is an MTA commuter line, it is also more than that. It is
also the AMTRAK passenger line with service to Buffalo, among
other places, and it is a freight line. A freight train uses
this line at least once, and often twice, each night during the
hours when commuter service is not offered, generally between the
hours of midnight and 5:00 a.m.. In addition, freight trains
often use the tracks on weekend days when commuter traffic is
less. For example, last Sunday, May 15, I was in Constitution
Marsh with a canoe tour group. At about 11:00 a.m., a one-
hundred + car freight train went past the marsh, in broad
daylight, and was photographed on videotape by Channel WBTA in
Beacon, who was with me filming the group on the canoe tour.
There is daily freight service on this line!!. A short spur
could easily be constructed on the existing old railroad bed
along the north side of Foundry Cove. A switch engine could push
loaded cars onto the main line where they could be coupled with
-------
page three
National Audubon RI/FS consents
little delay onto passing freights, and the cars could be hauled
to Buffalo. Fron Buffalo to Model City disposal site, the
materials could be transferred to trucks, thus eliminating the
need for construction of a second spur to Model City.
As an alternative, loaded trucks could be placed on flatcars,
hauled by freight train to Buffalo, then driven off for the short
trip to Model City. Empty trucks could then be driven back to
Cold Spring for reloading, cutting in half the potential number
of trips needed through Cold Spring. I don't believe the public
yet understands that perhaps 7,000 trucks will pass through the
Village (counting loaded outbound and empty inbound trips from
both East Foundry Cove — 6,000 — and from cleanup of the plant
site — 1,000), under the current scenario. This will surely be
the most unpopular aspect of the cleanup effort and will almost
surely lead to accidents and road damage in the Village. Please
reopen and reconsider the railroad option.
In summary, I support the cleanup, fixation and removal of
contaminated soil on the battery plant grounds, cleanup of the
dust and other contaminants in the building, and removal of the
existing burial vault, in the safest and most cost-efficient
manner. The end result should be clean grounds and a clean
building that can then be put to some productive use.
Thank you for considering these comments.
/
J--/
f /James P. Rod
/ / Manager
/ / Constitution Marsh Sanctuary
cc: Ron Sloan \^/
Paul Keller
-------
LETTER FROM J,
COMMENT NO.
ROD - May 16, 1988
RESPONSE
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 4
The East Foundry Cove
portion of the site will
be addressed in the Area
III Record of Decision.
After consideration of
all available
information regarding the
vault, it is the
agency's conclusion that
removal of the vault is a
more appropriate solution
for this portion of the
site in assuring a higher
level of confidence in
the long-term
effectiveness and
permanence of the remedy,
than the no-action
alternative.
of the objectives of
the treatability study
performed by Chemfix
Technologies,
Incorporated (CTI) is to
treat the waste at an
optimum reagent ratio to
pass the evaluations
under the Toxic
Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) and the
Multiple Extraction
Procedure (MEP) . Since
the TCLP test has not
been promulgated, the
waste will have to pass
the EP Toxicity Test in
order to be classified as
a non-RCRA hazardous
waste.
The major fire hazard in
the former battery plant
results from the books
warehoused in the
building. No danger to
fire fighters or nearby
residents exists from
-------
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 6
cadmium vaporizing during
the fire. Any cadmium
exposure to nearby
residents or fire
fighters will be via the
inhalation of cadmium
particulates in the
smoke, not cadmium fumes
or vapors which are more
toxic.
Prior to the cleanup of
the entire site, there is
a possibility that the
trucks might be
contaminated by driving
them on site (e.g.,
contaminated fugitive
dust, etc.). For safety
it is suggested in the FS
report that the trucks be
decontaminated before
leaving the site.
The contractor hauler is
retired by law to
obtain a state approved
license before hauling
either hazardous or
nonhazardous waste over
the public highways.
Alternatives for waste
transport will be
considered during the
design phase of this
project.
-------
ENIO L. CARRUTH. MPH
Public Ht»llh Director
PETER C AlEXANDERSON Y^^S^7 JOHN SIMMONS. MO
County E.tcutive XjFvQX O.outy Comm,,,,on.r
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ' '"
Division Of Environmental Health Services
110 Old Route Six Center, Carmel, New York 10512
(914) 225-0310
June 15, 1988
Magalie Beausejour
Project Manager
USEPA
26 Federal Plaza, Room 23-102
New York, NY 10278
RE: Marathon Battery Company
Putnam County, New York
Dear Ms. Beausejour:
As a result of last night's public meeting in Cold Spring on the subject
site, it has become plainly clear that improvements are , seeded in the manner in
which information is disseminated. Of major concern iar'the lack of notice to
land owners of the results of analyses of soil from their yards. Regardless of
the results, they should have been forwarded to the landowners with an
explanation as soon as they were available. Because some of the levels were
found to be significantly greater than acceptable levels for growing food-chain
crops, it is even more important that the proper advisories or warnings be
communicated.
Another area which could stand improvement is routine direct communication
with individuals in the community. Direct mailings to public officials
(village, town, and county) as well as past public meeting attendees and
adjacent property owners is recommended. Lack of receipt of the developed fire
plan by the fire chief is another indication that needed information is not
being sent to the proper people.
\
Public clarification, perhaps by means of a personal letter mailed directly
to each public meeting participant, of the specifics of the existing sediment
vault construction is apparently needed to address what appears to be the major
point of community opposition. Clarification should include descriptions of the
vault construction, design criteria (in layman's terms), whether design life is
30 or 2000 years, what could cause failure, probability of failure as compared .
to other known risks (e.g. automobile accident), what could occur if failure
occurs and its potential impact on public health (again, compared to other
common risks), and what will occur in the event of vault failure and who is
responsible for remediation. Though much of this information is in the June 88
Update, communication by means of a personal letter may serve to reassure the
public of EPA's competancy.
-------
Magalie Beausejour
Page 2
June 15, 1988
Selection of alternative GU-1 should not proceed until identification of
long-term water supply for the village is defined. Period requiring
identification should coincide with expected length until groundwater flushing
is completed. If no reasonable expectation of groundwater use can be expected
for consumptive purposes (e.g. due to salt water intrusion) then this barrier to
selection of alternative GW-1 would be removed.
Alternative S-4 has identified hazards associated with increased truck
traffic. This hazard appears to be of such significance that construction of a
new site access road that bypasses the village is indicated. Another identified
alternative is construction of a rail spur which may be preferable to
construction of a new access road. The probable impact on land adjacent to the
site to achieve remediation to the 20 ppm level for cadmium has not been
discussed. If remedial- activities are expected to be undertaken on residential
property, significant public relations efforts will be necessary to inform
homeowners that their front yards are going to be removed. This should also be
addressed in the aforementioned public clarification statement.
If possible, it is requested that this Department routinely receive five
copies of future Superfund Updates for this site and others located in Putnam
County.
Very truly yours,
James S. Hodgens
Assistant Public Health Engineer
JSH:mbt
cc: Scott Radabaugh, NYS DEOAlbany
-------
LETTER FROM JAMES S. HODGENS -
PUTNAM COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
JUNE 15, 1988
COMMENT NO.
RESPONSE
Paragraph I
Paragraph II
Paragraph III
Paragraph IV
In the past, EPA collected soil
samples from the residential
yards adjacent to the former battery
facility to determine whether off-site
migration of heavy metal contamination from
the site had occurred, and whether it posed
an immediate health threat to the residents.
These data, which indicate no immediate
health threat, were discussed at a June 13,
1988 public meeting. Following the public
meeting, the data and an explanation of it
were forwarded to the residents whose yards
were sampled.
As a State-lead project until March 1986 and
as a federal-lead project thereafter,
numerous formal and informal public meetings
have been held and public information
notices have been distributed to the public.
In addition, EPA staff have met with the
Mayor of Cold Spring on^several occasions.
Two copies of the Fire^Contingency Plan were
hand-delivered to the clerk in the Village
Town Hall in March 1988. One copy was
intended for the Mayor and the other copy for
the Fire Chief. Apparently, the plan was
never forwarded to the Fire Chief by the
Mayor's office.
Since the as-built drawings for the vault are
not available, it is impossible for the
agency to accurately determine the useful
life the vault. It is clear, however, that
the existing vault does not meet the minimum
requirements of a containment system as set
forth by RCRA (see attached RCRA memo).
Moreover, the limestone treatment process
used on the vault sediments does not
permanently nor significantly reduce the
mobility of the metals. (see attached letter
on the comparison of the chemical fixation
process with the limestone treatment).
Accordingly, the Agency believes that removal
of the vault would be more protective of
human health and the environment.
The groundwater underlying the site is not
currently being utilized as a potable water
supply. It is believed that the
-------
contamination in the aquifer will naturally
attenuate in 3-10 years. Institutional
controls would be employed to prevent
utilization of the aquifer until Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are attained.
While the groundwater is not presently
available as a potable water supply, once
MCLs are attained, it will be available for
use by the Village.
Paragraph V Alternatives for waste transport will be
considered during the design phase of this
project. The Agency recognizes that it is
important to keep the public fully informed
on all work to be done.
-------
12 Constitution Drive
Cold Spring, New York
June 24, 1988
Magalie Beausjour
Project Manager, U.S. E.P.A.
Emergency and Beaedlal Response Division
26 Federal Plaza Rm. 23-102
New York, New York
Dear Ms. Beausjour,
I an writing this letter with deep concerns about the health related risks
that can cause problems due to cadjrf.ua poisoning. My family lives at 12 Constitution
Drive where the highest levels of cadmiun were found in my back yard,6? PPM.
In 1986 soil samples were taken from under my pear tree. We have eaten pears off
this tree for more than 10 years and I have also had a vegtable garden in my yard
for the past several years. A garden which has fed my family for decades. We are
facing severe problems at our doorstep since cadmium poisoning is known to cause
cancer. Thereare many dangers and risks at stake here. This is our home and has
been for the past thirty years and it is a little too late to finally be made aware
of someone elses irreversible mistakes which have been happening during and after
the Sonotone Plant operations.
I have been told that when the bulldozers come in to clean up Sonotone
that they will also be digging my yard , taking the soil, replacing it and reseeding
it. I demand that this be put in writing and notice be sent to me prior to excavation.
My family myself and my neighbors have been over the years feeling ill
effects on our health which may be attributed to the contamination in our general
vicinity of Constitution Erive. Soil samples were taken in 1986. /rfhy then was I
not notified as soon as the El-A knew the levels at risk in these soil samples?
I am extremely upset and demand more action to be taken on this account, i-.y family
along with hundreds of other signatures want your contaminated vault out of this
area and put where it may not be. a potential threat to American citizens. WE want
Emergency Remedial Response.
\
; • Sincerly,
Richard, Mary, Andrew, and hark Fidala
-------
Public Health Service
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry
Memorandum
Date .August 4, 1988
From Denise Johnson
Regional Representative, ATSDR
Subject Health Consultation
Pidala Family, Marathon Battery
Cold Springs, New York
Joel Singerman
Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asked .the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to comment on the
health risk associated with the ingestion of pears grown in a
backyard with a cadmium level of 67 parts per million (ppm) and
the consumption of vegetables grown by the Pidala family. The
Pidala residence is adjacent to the Marathon Battery NPL Site.
In two previous health consultations dated December 1, 1986 and
March 8, 1988 from ATSDR to EPA, Region II, ATSDR stated that
"the levels of cadmium do not pose an immediate health threat
but recommended that residents not grow Vegetables in the
contaminated areas since cadmium is readily concentrated in
vegetables and the ingestion of these vegetables may represent
a potential threat". ATSDR recommended the removal of the
higher levels of cadmium to alleviate this potential threat.
As mentioned previously, cadmium is readily taken up by plants
with the greatest accumulation found in plant roots, followed
by leafy dark green vegetables. Fruit from plants grown in
cadmium contaminated soil have poor uptake of cadmium. The
health risk associated with the ingestion of pears grown by
the Pidala 's is related to how often they eat pears.
Occasional ingestion of the pears is not likely to cause any
health problem for the Pidala family. The potential for health
problems to v develop increases when large quantities of pears are
consumed on ^a weekly basis for a long period of time. The World
Health Organization has estimated that a cadmium uptake of 200 mg
per day for 40 years, may result in kidney problems.
ATSDR recommends the following:
1. Residents should not consume vegetables grown in soil
containing level of cadmium greater that 20 ppm.
2. A composite sampling of the pears grown by the Pidala
family would provide information that would enable ATSDR
to more accurately assess the health risk associated
with the ingestion of pears. At this time, the occasional
consumption of pears is not likely to cause 'any health
-------
Health Consultation-page 2
Recommendations (continued):
2.(cont) problems, however weekly ingestion of large quantities
of pears over time increase the potential for health
problems to develop.
Questions should be directed to Bill Nelson or Denise Johnson
at 212-264-7662 or 201-321-6657.
cc: Dr. David Mellard ATSDR/ERB
George Buynoski ATSDR/FOB
Steve Von Allmen ATSDR/HACA
Magalie Beausejour EPA
Eugene Dominach EPA
-------
'
3 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
tC REGION II
<""°'t 26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK NEW YORK 10278
AU6 3119
Mr. and Mrs. Richard A. Pidala
12 Constitution Drive
\ Cold Spring, N.Y. 10516
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Pidala:
This is response to your June 24, 1988 letter.
The Environmental Protection Agency requested that the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
evaluate the health risk posed by the consumption of fruit
from your pear tree, in light of the fact that 67 milli-
grams per kilogram of cadmium were detected in a soil
sample collected from your backyard.
According to ATSDR, the health risk associated with the
ingestion of pears grown in your backyarders related to
how often the pears are consumed. Occasional ingestion
of the pears is not likely to cause a health problem.
The risk increases, however, when large quantities of
pears are consumed on a weekly basis, for a long period
of time.
Should you have any further questions, please feel free
to contact me, or Magalie Beausejour of my staff at
(212) 264-1336.
Sincerely yours,
Joel Singerman, Chief
Western New York Remedial Action Section
-------
Columbia University in the City of New York | New York. N. Y. 10027
DEPARTMENT OF CHEM.CAL ENG.NEER.NG 4 T.rrac.
APPLIED CHEMISTRY
July 1, 1988
Magalie Beausejour
Project Manager
US EPA, Emergency and Remedial Response Division #26
Federal Plaza Room 23-102
New York, NY 10278
Dear Sir:
This comment is addressed to you relative to the proposed remedial
action plan at the Marathon Battery site at Cold Spring, New York.
I was appointed by the Office of the U.S. Attorney to act as
independent technical expert in this matter, starting In 1970 and
continuing for two or three years. My first responsibility was to
help the plant comply with effluent requirements, which I did.
Then I was in charge of the dredging of Foundry Cove and the
construction of the vault. Subsequently^' I was asked to help the
company lower its effluent levels further, which I did and which I
believe was successful.
After undertaking this responsibility I made myself thoroughly
conversant with all of the technical literature pertinent to the
subject, including the toxicity of cadmium, its role in the
environment and means for its safe disposal. The spoils project
involved many meetings with experts in the field and with members
of the many regulatory agencies who were Involved. At no time did
I take any arbitrary action but obtained a concensus as to the
dredging and entombment procedures. Having spent many days at the
plant and on Foundry Cove, having personally taken and analyzed
many samples, I regard myself as an expert on the subject.
\
I address myself;to two subjects. First, the vault was built
using the best of available technologies and since then the
methods used have become State-of-the-art. The vault Itself Is
good indefinitely. It. was constructed on glacial till and the
engineers who surveyed that site commented that "the Empire State
Building could be put up here with confidence." There apparently
is now an oppinion that the vault was meant to be secure for only
30 years. This must refer to the fence and the like because the
vault itself, in my opinion, will be stable and safe indefinitely.
-1-
-------
The document dated June '88 refers also to additional dredging in
the Cove and some further work at the plant site. With regard to
the Cove, the work done in '72 and '73 was believed, at that time,
to be appropriate and permanent. I have asked for subsequent data
but have as yet not received it. Unless some new information
which is new and different is made available to me, I see no
reason for further dredging of the Cove.
With regard to the plant site, here I have no comments at this
time because the plant was operating when I was last there.
I write this as an independent citizen, not as an adviser to
anyone and express my own, personal opinions.
Sincerely yours,
Harry P. Gregor
Professor Emeritus
Special Research Scientist
-------
LETTER FRCM HARRY P. GRBGQR, JULY 1, 1988
OCMMEWT NO.
Letter Based upon a review of the available design documents
describing the vault, as well as groundwater samples
collected from monitoring wells surrounding the vault, EPA
has no reason to believe that the contaminated sediments
are not presently properly contained. However, should the
vault's integrity be violated, the potential exists for
contaminating the aquifer under the site.
The September 1986 Record of Decision selected dredging of
the contaminated sediments (>100 mg/kg cadmium) from East
Foundry Cove Marsh. The fact that levels of cadmium
ranging from the 100 mg/kg action level up to 171,000
mg/kg have been detected in these sediments justifies
removal. The levels of cadmium currently present in the
sediments present a public health and environmental
threat.
-------
ralph brill associates
6 July 1988
Ms. Maglie Beausejour
Project Manager
U.S. E.P.A:
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
26 Federal Plaza
Room 23-102
New York, New York 10278
re: Marathon Battery Site
Cold Spring, New York
Dear Ms. Beausejour:
I am -a consultant to. Dr. Jerome Spevack, Owner of the
adjacent West Point Foundry Site in Cold Spring. This
Property comprises about 90 Acres and incorporates 40+
Acres in Foundry Cove.
As we are not satisfied with any of the proposed solu-
tions for Removing the Contaminations, we are Offering
the following:
1- Set up Temporary Metals Recovery Plant on the
West Point Foundry Property to Receive Dredged and
Other Materials.
2- We will extract the Cadmium, Cobalt, etc. and Safely
Store Them for Disposal or more likely Industrial Sale.
The "Cleaned" Soils will be Replaced to where they were
extracted'' from. ,'
This Undertaking will Save Money and will eliminate the
need for a Major arid'Unsafe Trucking Operation.
i
Dr. Jepomp Spevack was President of Deuterium Corp. and
holds/several Patents concerning the Proposed Recoveries,
(
Si-nc^ely,
ASSOCIATES
lalph Brill", President RB:sj
box 200 garrison, new vork 10524 tel. no. 914-265-3060-
-------
LETTER FROM RALPH BRILL ASSOCIATES - JULY 6, 1988
Extraction of cadmium from sediments, using acids or solvents,
was evaluated in the Area I FS report. Acid extraction was
eliminated in the initial screening because bench-scale tests
showed that this technology could not achieve acceptable re-
moval efficiencies. Solvent extraction of metals from sediments
was also eliminated in the initial screening, because it is
not a demonstrated and proven technology.
Any metal recovery scheme proposed for East Foundry Cove must
be evaluated to determine if the plan is appropriate. This
evaluation would require detailed information on the processes
to be used and the cost of the recovery operation. In addition,
the proposed recovery scheme must meet the remedial objectives,
and comply with the Area I ROD.
-------
33OO FIRST CITY TOWER
IOOI FANNIN
OUSTON,TEXAS 77OO2-e7«O
TELEPHONE 713 051-2222
CABLE VINELKINS-TELEX 782146
THE WILLARO OrriCC BUILDING
MS9 PENNSYLVANIA AVE . N. W.
WASHINGTON, O. C. 2OOO«-IOO7
TtLEPHONe *0* 039-6500 TCLU 69680
VINSON & ELKINS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
FIRST CITY CENTRE
aie CONORESS AVENUE
AUSTIN,TEXAS 787OI-2496
TELEPHONE 912 *9S-8<«OO
July 6, 1988
37OO TRAMMELL CROW CENTCB
2OOI ROSS AVENUE
DALLAS.TEXAS 75201-8016
TELEPHONE 8I« 82O-77OO
47 CHARLES ST.. BERKELEY SOU*'
LONDON W1X 7FB, ENOLANC
TELEPHONE 01 *•' ««i-»23e
CABLC VINCUUNS LONDON Wl-TCLCI Z4l»f
By Telecopy
Ms. Magalie Beausejour,
Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency and'Remedial Response Division
26 Federal Plaza, Room 23-102
New York, New York 10278
Re: Marathon Battery Company Site,
Cold Spring, New York
Dear Ms. Beausejour:
In accordance with the extension of the comment period
granted by Region II on June 23, 1988, enclosed please find
copies of comments on the draft Remedial Investigation
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and Proposed Remedial Action Plan
(PRAP) for Area II of the referenced site, provided by ERT
and being submitted on behalf of Marathon Battery Company
and Gould Inc. The companies look forward to discussing
these comments with the agency.
Sincerely,
VINSON & ELKINS
Jeff Civins
Counsel for Marathon Battery
Company
JC:ab
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Beverly Kolenberg,. EPA Region II
Ms. Lisa Ryan, U. S. Department of Justice
Mr. Michael C. Veysey, Gould Inc.
-------
Document No. 7060-001-000
Comments of the Marathon Battery
Company and Gould Inc. on the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study and Proposed Remedial Action
Plan for Area II of the Marathon Battery
Superfund Site
Cold Spring, New York
ERT
An ENSR Company
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
July 1988
-------
Document No. 7060-001-000
Comments of the Marathon Battery
Company and Gould Inc. on the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study and Proposed Remedial Action
Plan for Area II of the Marathon Battery
Superfund Site
Cold Spring, New York
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
July 1988
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. GROUND WATER 2-1
2.1 Discharge to Foundry Cove 2-1
2.2 Relationship Between VOCs in Ground Water
and in Soils 2-3
2.3 Ground^Water Monitoring - ->>*Cl 2-6
3. BUILDING DECONTAMINATION/SOIL EXCAVATION/FIXATION/
ENHANCED VOLATILIZATION/OFF-SITE DISPOSAL 3-1
3.1 Soil Excavation 3-1
3.2 Building Decontamination 3-10
3.3 -Treatment and Disposal of Soil/Dust 3-10
4. VAULT 4-1
FOOTNOTES
REFERENCES
6796F 7060-001-000
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
Marathon and Gould (the "Companies") believe that the
proposed remedial actions of Region II of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") concerning Area II of
the Foundry Cove Superfund Site, in general, are technically
sound, protective of human health and the environment, and *
cost-effective. In particular, the companies support the
proposed recommendation of no action for ground water and the
vault', including provisions for ground-water monitoring. The
Companies also support building decontamination and limited
soil remediation. The Companies, however, do have specific
concerns with the proposal, primarily with regard to the
criteria for soil cleanup, and believe that these criteria
should be reevaluated. The reasoning of the Companies is
explained in these comments, which the Companies submit for
EPA's consideration. These comments are based upon a review of
the following three documents:
jf
o Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report, Marathon
Battery Company Site (Former Battery Plant Grounds),
Village of Cold Spring, Putnam County, New York. May
1988 (RI).
o Draft Supplemental Feasibility Study Report, Marathon
Battery Company Site (Former Battery Plant Grounds),
Village of Cold Spring, Putnam County, New York. May
1988 (FS)
o Proposed Remedial Action Plan, Marathon Battery
Company Site, Putnam County, New York, June 1988.
(PRAP)
1-1
6797F 7060-001-000
-------
2. GROUND WATER
After reviewing the RI, FS, PRAP and pertinent references,
the Companies concur with the conclusion that no action
(Alternative GW-1) is appropriate for ground water. The
reasoning of the Companies, however, differs from that
expressed in the RI/FS. This difference is significant in that
it affects other portions of the remedial action plan, such as
the proposed remediation of VOC-contaminated soil. In the
discussion below, the Companies elaborate, focusing on the
following points:
o Discharge to Foundry Cove
o Relationship between volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) in groundwater and in soil
o Monitoring program
2.1 Discharge to Foundry Cove
.#
The calculation of the flux of VOC (specifically
trichloroethylene, or TCE) in ground water into East Foundry
Cove was based on several assumptions that the Companies
believe are incorrect.
The calculation uses Darcy's equation, which relates
the cross-sectional area of an aquifer to the
discharge rate (or flow) through the aquifer (EBASCO
1988a, page 4-28). The withdrawal rate from the
pumping test was input into this equation rather than
the natural discharge rate (or flow) through the
aquifer. As a result, the calculation does not
represent natural conditions in the aquifer, and the
estimated cross-sectional area is in error. If
instead the aquifer cross-sectional area is
calculated using an estimate of the saturated
thickness and the, width of the contaminated plume at
the discharge to East Foundry Cove, a flux of
contaminated ground water of approximately 6750
ft3/day is obtained (as opposed to the 179,000
ft3/day calculated in the RI).
2-1
6798F 7060-001-000
-------
The ground-water flux for the entire aquifer
presumably was multiplied by peak TCE concentrations
at the site to obtain the TCE flux into the cove.
The average plume concentrations at the point that
the plume enters the cove is more representative of
existing site conditions and should be used in the
calculation rather than TCE concentrations at the
site.
Since no off-site monitoring wells are available for data
on groundwater quality at the discharge point, data from the
most downgradient on-site well should be used as an estimate of
the discharge concentration, rather than peak concentrations
measured upgradient. To obtain a more realistic estimate,
based on site-specific conditions, the effects of retardation
also should be taken into account. Using a TCE concentration
of 13 ppb and the calculated retardation factor of 7.3 , the
mass flux of the TCE into East Foundry Cove is estimated at 124
grams/year, .a value considerably less than the 536 grams/day or
195,640 grams/year calculated in the RI. With a mass flux of
124 gms/day of TCE and a total flow in the Cove of 64 million
gallons per day (32 million gallons perAtidal flux as cited in
the RI), the concentration of TCE in the Cove is estimated at
_q
1.4 nanograms/liter (1.4 x 10 grams/liter). The lower mass
flux translates to an even lower environmental impact to the
East Foundry Cove than calculated in the RI, though a longer
time is required to remove contaminants from the site by
natural flushing.
As a result of the assumptions of the RI, extremely large
fluxes of ground-water and TCE entering the cove were
calculated. It the Rl-estimated ground-water flux on the order
of 2 cfs were correqt, all of the TCE would have been flushed
from the site in a Very short period of time and the TCE should
not continue to be present in site soil. Data reported from
the RI indicate that this is not the case .
In summary/ although the flux of ground-water and the mass
transfer of associated TCE into East Foundry Cove were
2-2
6798F 7060-001-000
-------
overestimated, the conclusion reached in the RI, that the flux
of contaminated ground water to the cove does not produce a
significant environmental impact, remains the same.
2.2 Relationship Between VOCs in Ground Water and in Soil
VOC-contaminated soils on the Site do not appear to be a
significant source of ground-water contamination. After
carefully considering the derivation of remediation goals for
soils and ground water, the model for contaminant distribution,
and the analytical data presented in the RI/FS Reports, the
Companies believe that a conclusion that no action is
appropriate for ground water compels a conclusion that no
action is also appropriate for VOC-contaminated soils. Each
step of this reasoning is presented below.
The remediation goals for ground water formed the basis
for remediation goals for soil. The FS derives remediation
goals for VOCs in ground water by considering the potential for
contamination of groui
FS Report states that
contamination of ground water as VOCs Jjlfach from soil . The
"...estimates of the remediation levels for TCE, PCE or
chloroform in soil are based upon the requirement for
non-detectable groundwater concentrations. Therefore, it
is assumed that non-detectable concentrations would be the
remediation levels for TCE, and PCE and chloroform in
soil." (EBASCO 1988b, page 1-24)
There are several flaws in this statement and in
supporting arguments elsewhere in the RI/FS.
\ ';-
o Non-detectable ground water concentrations are
described in the quoted statement as the remediation
goal. The proposed New York State MCLs, however,
have been designated as remediation goals for ground
water. Those concentrations are detectable; in fact,
the RI notes on page 5-24 that the detection limit
for TCE was 5 ug/1, which is the MCL.
2-3
6798F 7060-001-000
-------
Detectable concentrations of VOCs in soil will permit
achievement of remediation goals for ground water.
The statement that soil concentrations must be
npndetectable is not supported in the FS; in fact
is contradicted both by analytical data presented
the RI, and by the related discussions of contaminant
transport in ground water.
Data on chloroform concentrations presented in
the RI illustrate the point. Table 5-6
indicates that no ground-water sample contains
chloroform at or approaching the remediation
goal of 100 ug/1 (the MCL), although chloroform
has been found in saturated soil (in contact
with ground water) at concentrations up to 120
ug/kg (EBASCO 1988a, Table 5-3). Chloroform in
saturated soil should be in equilibrium with the
ground water. The ground water in contact with
such soil should contain the maximum possible
concentration of chloroform. These data
indicate that it is not necessary to achieve
non-detectable levels of chloroform in the soil
to achieve the remediation goal for chloroform
in ground water.
Theoretical arguments elsewhere in the RI/FS
should have been considered in the derivation of
the remediation goal for^VOCs in soil. Section
5.3 of the RI describes "a model for the '
distribution of organic contaminants between
soil and ground water4. However, it does not
appear that this or any other model of
contaminant distribution was used to derive the
"nondetectable" remediation goal for VOCs in
soil.
The data from the RI also indicate that an
off-site source of VOCs may affect ground-water
quality on the site. A split-sample from
upgradient well 3S obtained during the first
round of ground-water sampling contained 2.7
ug/1 trichloroethylene (ERT data; not detected
in the split sample collected for EPA).
Second-round samples from that well contained 2
ug/r (EBASCO 1988a, page 5-25) and 3.7 ug/1 (ERT
data)., These data indicate that ground water
flowing, onto the site may already be
contaminated.
Given the aquifer transmissivity and the low
levels of volatile organic compounds found in
the ground water at the site, it would be
2-4
6798F 7060-001-000
-------
possible to select locations for water supply
wells near the site boundaries where the ground
water produced from the wells would not contain
contaminants above the MCLs. This conclusion
supports the no-action alternatives for both
VOC-contaminated soils and ground water.
Qualitative analyses of the data from the RI indicate that
soil remediation does not appear to be warranted.
o Only very low levels of TCE, PCE and chloroform were
found in the soil (parts per billion range), and
those only in certain few samples. Those isolated
data points do not reliably indicate that the soils
targeted for remediation act as a significant source
of ground-water contamination.
o The levels of contaminants in ground water are
generally decreasing over time. The RI states that:
"...it appears likely that a decrease in groundwater
contamination by volatile organics is occurring in
the aquifer" (EBASCO 1988a, page 5-27). This
statement suggests that soils are serving as only a
minor source of VOC contamination in the ground
water, if at all. If no action is currently required
for ground water, and the soi^ serve as a negligible
source of ground-water contamination, then no action
is appropriate for VOC-contaminated soils.
In summary:
o The remediation goal for ground water, if it is
eventually to be used for potable water, is to
achieve MCLs - not to achieve undetectable levels of
VOCs ;
o It is not necessary to achieve nondetectable levels
of VOCs in soil in order to reach remediation goals
for ground water; and
o Existing 'data do not suggest that soils are serving
as a source, of ground-water contamination.
\
Therefore, remedial action on VOC-containing soils is not
justified based upon remedial goals for, and present conditions
in, the ground water.
2-5
6798F 7060-001-000
-------
2.3 Ground-Water Monitoring
The PRAP describes the no-action alternative as i
ground-water monitoring of existing monitoring wells as well as
additional bedrock monitoring wells. The latter were not
included in either the description of the no-action alternative
or the cost estimate in the FS. In the Feasibility Study
Report (EBASCO 1988b, page 4-2), the monitoring well network
for the no action alternative is described as "the existing six
monitoring wells." Neither a list nor a map of the monitoring
well locations is provided. Presumably/ the six wells selected
for the monitoring program are shallow and intermediate-depth
wells 2S, 3S, 41, 5S, 6S and 75. The Companies agree with the
PRAP that additional monitoring should be conducted in the
bedrock, since it is likely that if off-site water supply wells
were installed, they would be installed in the bedrock rather
than the overburden. Existing bedrock well 40 should be
monitored, as well as an additional well installed in the
bedrock downgradient of shallow well 7Sr** Presumably,
monitoring of the wells adjacent to the vault (wells VI through
V5) would also be conducted. If this is not the case, then at
a minimum well V4 or a shallow well installed at the
southeastern boundary of the site should be monitored to
provide downgradient water quality data.
2-6
6798F 7060-001-000
-------
3. BUILDING DECONTAMINATION/SOIL EXCAVATION/FIXATION/
ENHANCED VOLATILIZATION/OFF-SITE DISPOSAL
The comments in this, section concern the proposed
alternative (S4) for remediation of dust in the building and
soils on site. While remedial actions are necessary to prevent
exposure to and migration of contaminants, several of the
components of the proposed remedial action plan are not
warranted. The reasoning which led to this conclusion is
discussed below and alternatives are proposed where appropriate.
3.1 Soil Excavation
3.1.1 VOC-Contaminated Soils
As discussed in the previous section, VOC-containing soils
need not be excavated and.treated to protect human health and
the environment. RI data do not indicate that the soil serves
as a significant source of ground-water,<*:ontamination. In
neither case is remedial action necessary. An action
alternative for VOG-contaminated soil is inconsistent with a no
action recommendation for ground water.
3.1.2 Cadmium-Contaminated Soils
The Companies agree that cadmium, rather than nickel or
cobalt, should be the focus of remedial actions for soil. The
Companies, however, have several concerns with the derivation
of remediation goals for cadmium and the resulting
remedial-action proposal.
Two goals are defined in the FS for remediation of cadmium
in soil:
"Prevent soils contaminated with cadmium above 100 ppm
from erosion by stormwater runoff and deposition into East
Foundry Cove after remediation" (EBASCO 1988b, page 1-24);
and
3-1
6800F 7060-001-000
-------
"Prevent cadmium contaminated soils and dust from being
resuspended and inhaled by persons on and off-site, at
concentrations above 50 mg/kg". (EBASCO 1988b, page 1-23)
ATSDR additionally has suggested a remediation goal of 20 mg/kg
cadmium based upon vegetable ingestion. Each of these goals is
discussed below.
100 ppm Criterion for Cadmium
The first remediation goal, relating to stormwater runoff,
is derived from the Record of Decision for Area I (EBASCO
1988b, page 1-23). As noted in previous comments on the RI/FS
for Area I (ERT 1986), the 100 mg/kg target level for cadmium
in the sediments was without both record support and scientific
justification. Furthermore, only a very limited quantity of
on-site soils contain high cadmium concentrations and there is
no evidence to suggest that significant erosion of those soils
has or may occur. The RI/FS does not demonstrate any link
between a small amount of runoff from t'he site and the total
concentration of cadmium in sediments in the cove.
50 ppm Criterion for Cadmium
The second remediation goal is to prevent the resuspension
and inhalation of soil which contains cadmium above 50 mg/kg.
The derivation of this level in the Endangerment Assessment
(EA) contained several unjustified assumptions. In some cases,
for example> recent scientific information suggests the use of
\
other assumptions arid exposure factors.
o The choice for a target risk level of lxlO~^ was
not explained. The risk assessment concluded that
56.3 mg/kg cadmium in soil should be acceptable,
assuming that the goal is to achieve the lxlO~6
risk level. No other levels of risk are considered,
although the EA acknowledges that risks in the range
of IxlO'4 to lxlO~7 are acceptable.
3-2
6800F 7060-001-000
-------
The USEPA has indicated in its Superfund risk
assessment guidance documents that cleanup levels
based on excess lifetime cancer risks of between
IxlO-4 to IxlO-7 are acceptable (EPA, 1986).
Recent research by an independent panel illuminates
that guidance. Based on a survey of 132 federal
regulatory decisions, including more than 100
decisions by the USEPA, it appears that the federal
government has not acted to reduce individual
lifetime cancer risks when those risks are less than
about IzlO'6 even if the whole of United States
population is exposed. The survey further shows that
in general, the acceptable risk is population-
dependent. For smaller populations, such as at this
site, regulatory agencies have never acted when
individual excess lifetime cancer risks are 1x10~4
or smaller (Travis et al. 1987). A concentration of
cadmium in soil of about 5600 mg/kg corresponds to a
IxlO-4 risk, using the assumptions of the EA (see
comments below on those assumptions). That
concentration is 100 times higher than the level
derived in the EA.
The cleanup level is based on the excess lifetime
cancer risk associated with inhalation of cadmium-
bearing soils suspended in the air on or in the
vicinity of the site5. Several assumptions used in
estimating the amount of cadmium in the air and the
dispersion of participates in-'air lead to unrealistic
overestimates of exposure and risk and therefore to a
much lower cleanup level than is justified. The
assumptions of particular concern are discussed
below.6
The risk assessment assumed that all of the
particulates in the air originate from the
site. This assumption is both incorrect and
inappropriate. Only a fraction of the
particulates in the air in the vicinity of the
site will be of site origin, since there are
many other sources of particulates in the area.
The contribution of these other sources must be
accounted for when deriving a clean-up level.
In addition, the site is largely covered with
vege.tation or pavement. It is also relatively
small. Both of these factors would suggest that
any contribution of the site soils to total
particulates in the air will also be small.
The risk assessment does not account for any
dispersion of particulates. Dispersion occurs
and must be accounted for. Any risk assessment
3-3
6800F 7060-001-000
-------
not accounting for dispersion will seriously and
unrealistically overestimate exposure and risks
and cannot be considered to be scientifically
valid.
The endangerment assessment assumes that all of
the particulates in the air that a person
breathes reach the lungs. This assumption, too
is incorrect. Larger particulates are trapped
in the nose and throat or are removed from the
lungs by ciliary action and are ingested.
Typically only about 50% of total suspended
particulates in air are inhalable (EPA 1981;
Spengler and Thurston 1983).
The risk assessment assumes that all of the
cadmium adsorbed onto particulates is available
to the body and therefore contributes to the
predicted ezcess lifetime cancer risk. This
assumption also is incorrect. The absorption
and toxicity of cadmium depends upon particle
size, the solubility of the cadmium compounds
and other factors (EPA 1981).
The exposure assumptions relating to frequency of
exposure used in the risk assessment are not
realistic because they do not differentiate between
people who are onsite, such as workers or
trespassers, and people who "are offsite. The EA
assumes that all exposed people are on site (or
exposed to on-site conditions). That is impossible
for two reasons. First, residents living near the
site spend most if not all of their time offsite and
therefore are not exposed continually to on-site
concentrations. Second, the off-site concentrations
of airborne cadmium-bearing soils would be much lower
than the concentration on site. Airborne
particulates would disperse as they were blown off
site. As stated previously, a risk assessment must
account for the effects of dispersion.
Further, the exposure assessment assumes that people
exposed to the dust are on site and inhale the
highest possible level of cadmium in the air for 24
hours per day for seventy years. This assumption is
totally incorrect and invalid. It is unlikely that
anyone would remain at the same location for 24 hours
per day, let alone for over 600,000 hours
consecutively, as the EA assumes. Workers are onsite
about 8 hours per day, not 24. Trespassers visit the
site even less frequently and for much shorter
durations.
3-4
6800F 7060-001-000
-------
Use of realistic exposure assumptions will greatly
reduce the exposures and risks predicted by the risk
assessment. The calculated risk would decrease by an
order of magnitude or more. A consequence of this
would be a higher, but scientifically more valid
clean up level.
o The EA cites regulatory limits for airborne cadmium
dust (EBASCO 1988a, page 7-15). The lowest of these,
recommended by the American Conference of Government
Industrial Hygenists (ACGIH), is 0.05 mg/m3. That
concentration, may be related to a soil concentration
protective of exposed workers. Using the assumptions
of the EA7, workers could be safely exposed to soil
which contained up to 100% cadmium. The value
calculated from the ACGIH exceeds the EA criterion
for worker protection by five orders of magnitude.
o The .risks estimated in the EA are based on the
maximum measured concentrations of cadmium in soil,
and the clean up level is presented as a maximum
value not to be exceeded. Neither of these
approaches is realistic or justified. A person does
not ingest or inhale soil only from the area with the
highest level of cadmium. A person visits different
areas of the site while on site. Many of the areas
have very low concentrations of cadmium, a few will
have higher concentrations and only one will have the
highest concentration. Similarly, the area of
highest concentration is not the only source of
particulates in air, as the risk assessment assumes.
A more appropriate and justifiable assumption is that
people are exposed to an average concentration of
cadmium on the site. Therefore, the cleanup level
should also be based on an average concentration
rather than the maximum concentration.
o The model used to describe cadmium leaching does not
appear to be site-specific. The derivation of the
cleanup goal also considered the potential for
significant groundwater contamination to result from
residual cadmium. While this approach generally is
appropriate, it is inappropriate not to tailor the
methods used in the analysis to the site. The EA
cites literature values of soil/water partition
coefficients (KgO for cadmium in the range from 300
to 30,000 I/kg. Based upon these values, and
considering ah acceptable concentration of cadmium in
the ground water .to be 10 ug/1, an acceptable
concentration of residual cadmium between 3 and 300
mg/kg was calculated. The EA then declared that "If
the best estimate K
-------
Relating groundwater concentrations to soil
concentrations of metals via literature values of
Kg« is an oversimplification. The ability of a soil
to retain or leach metals is very site-specific and
depends upon the physicochemical characteristics of
the system. Key variables include (Adriano 1986):
soil pH;
cation exchange capacity of the soil;
presence of other chemical compounds in the soil
which may react with the metal by redox
reaction, precipitation, or chelation to change
the form, solubility, and/or speciation of a
metal;
amount or pH of infiltration which can dissolve
• and transport metal ions.
No citations or explanations are given in the text of
the EA as to why the "best estimate K^" for the
soils at this site is 3,000 1/mg. Without a solid
technical justification for the derivation, the
"acceptable soil concentration" of 30 mg/kg is
scientifically unsupported.
Ground-water monitoring data in Table 5-7 of the RI
appear to contradict the model. Of 14 samples (from
13 locations), only one sample contained cadmium at a
detectable level. Even that sample, at 6 ug/1, is
below the cleanup criterion of 10 ug/1. These data
indicate that even at present levels of Cd in the
soil, very little is leaching to groundwater.
The final step in the derivation of the cleanup
criterion is unexplained. At the conclusion of the
analysis of the effects and transport of cadmium, the
EA states with no justification that "For the
purposes of this investigation, 50 mg/kg is the
concentration of cadmium that would totally protect
workers and nearby residents. This concentration was
used to estimate the volume of soils requiring
remediation in the Area II Feasibility Study. A soil
cadmium cpncentration of 50 mg/kg provides a cancer
risk of 0.89 x 10~6" (EBASCO 1988a, page 7-33). No
explanation1-is given for lowering the soil
remediation goal from the previously risk-derived
level of 56.3 mg/kg. As elsewhere, no explanation is
given for choosing the particular risk target. The
previously-derived level of 56.3 mg/kg would have
been more logically rounded up to 60 mg/kg than
3-6
6800F 7060-001-000
-------
rounded down to 50 mg/kg; even rounding up to 100
mg/kg would only imply a potential risk of
1.78xlO"6 (using the conservative assumptions of
the EA), certainly not an unreasonable level.
20 ppm - ATSDR's Veaetable-Ingestion Based Criterion
The ATSOR has recommended a clean up level for cadmium in
residential soils of 20 ppm. This recommendation was
documented in a memorandum from William Nelson, ATSOR Regional
Representative, to Joel Singerman of U.S. EPA Region II,
entitled "Marathon Battery Site Consultation", dated
June 10, 1988. Copies of the memorandum were provided to the
Companies by EPA. Neither the 20 ppm level nor its derivation
were included in the risk assessment presented in the RI Report
(EBASCO 1988a). To date, that derivation has not been made
available. It is therefore not possible to provide detailed
•
comments on ATSDR's recommendation. The Companies note,
however, that incorporating human exposure via the food chain
into an endangerment assessment requires* additional
r*
assumptions. The amount of a contaminant reaching the
foodstuff must be estimated in addition to the amount of the
foodstuff that is eaten by a person. In almost all cases these
assumptions have even greater uncertainty than those used in
estimating direct exposures because humans have been studied in
much greater detail than individual species of plants and
animals. From past experience, the areas that have great
uncertainty and therefore can make significant contributions to
overestimates of risk include: failure to consider
site-specific soil parameters; failure to account for
\
site-specific fobdsiuff ingestion rates; the bioavailability of
a contaminant in soil to plants; the bioavailability of a
contaminant in plants to humans; and plant specific differences
in uptake of a contaminant. These and other parameters need
careful consideration when assessing the risks associated with
ingestion of vegetables.
3-7
6800F 7060-001-000
-------
Before selecting a cleanup level for remedial action, the
Companies believe it appropriate that there be an adequate
scientific basis. This the RI does not provide. If
documentation is provided as to how the clean up level was
derived, the Companies would welcome the opportunity to review
it and submit comments on the proposed 20 ppm clean up level.
3.1.3 Alternative Remedial Proposal
Regardless of the specific numerical criteria for cadmium
in soil, the remediation goal is to protect human health and
the environment from the potential effects of exposure to
eroded suspended soils. That goal may be met by a combination
of remedial actions which are both environmentally sound and
more cost-effective than those proposed in the PRAP. In
particular, the Companies propose the following remedial
actions for metal-contaminated soil:
(1) excavation of the top six inches of soil in all
unpaved areas; ""'
(2) excavation of "hot spots" (defined as 1000 mg/kg or
more of cadmium or nickel, i.e. locations 1,2,3 and
4) to appropriate depths;
(3) treatment either on- or off-site, whichever is more
practical and cost-effective; and
(4) disposal off-site.
Excavation of hot spots plus a surficial six-inch layer
across the unpaved areas of the site would remove approximately
73% of the known- mass of cadmium in soil. This remedial action
would decrease the potential for exposure to and migration of
cadmium-contaminated soils, and permanently and significantly
decrease the volume, toxicity and mobility of cadmium on site.
As stated previously, remediation of VOC - contaminated soils
is not necessary to protect public health and the environment.
3-8
6800F 7060-001-000
-------
Recent EPA guidance supports this common-sense approach:
"For sites with discrete hot spots or areas of more
concentrated contamination, however, it may be more useful
to define areas and volumes for remediation on the basis
of the site-specific relationship of volume (or area) to
contaminant levels. Therefore, when areas or volumes of
media are defined on the basis of site-specific
considerations such as volume versus concentration
relationships, the volume or area addressed by the
alternative should be reviewed with respect to the
remedial action objectives to ensure that alternatives can
be assembled to, as a minimum, reduce exposure to
protective levels." (EPA, 1988c)
It is appropriate to base soil remediation far the
Marathon Battery Site upon the relationship between volume of
soil and total mass of cadmium. Partial excavation to remove
the bulk of cadmium, followed by pavinq
-------
110 cy of dust which must be removed and treated. Second, the
purpose for activities outlined in the Supplement to the
Proposed Remedial Action Plan is unclear.
The assessment of potential risks from a fire in the
building (EBASCO 1988a, pages 7-27 and 7-36) indicated that it
would not pose a significant risk from exposure to cadmium. As
a result, the remedial objectives did not incorporate that
scenario. The Proposed Remedial Action Plan (EPA 1988a),
however, includes the repair of the sprinkler and heating
systems in the building "to minimize the risk to public health
and the environment should a fire occur in the facility". This
proposal was not considered in the Feasibility Study, and its
inclusion in t'he PRAP is confusing. If a fire were to occur
before cadmium-containing dust was removed from the building,
the risk assessment demonstrated that it would not cause a
significant risk to public health. If a fire occurred after
dust removal, there would be no "risk to public health and the
environment" from a release of a hazardous substance.
Therefore, the repair of the sprinkler a«Hd heating systems is
not supported by the RI/FS.
i
3.3 Treatment and Disposal of Soil/Dust
Treatment of soil and dust via solidification may occur
on-site or off-site. Each location has advantages and
disadvantages.
On-site treatment may be cost-effective for large volumes
of soil. However, on-site treatment would present short-term
local risks to public health, an important consideration given
\ \
public concern over^the site.
Off-site treatment was not fully evaluated in the FS. For
relatively small volumes of soil, off-site treatment at a
licensed facility may be more cost-effective than on-site
treatment. Furthermore, off-site treatment minimizes the
potential for local exposure to excavated soils. Off-site
treatment also minimizes the truck traffic from the site,
because the volume of soil is expected to double with treatment.
3-10
6800F 7060-001-000
-------
The FS Report specifies that treated soil and dust will be
disposed of in a RCRA landfill and the costs of disposal were
estimated accordingly. This component of the PRAP is
Inconsistent with the Record of Decision (ROD) signed for
Area 1 on September 30, 1986. That ROD specifies that fixated
sediments will be trucked to a sanitary landfill for disposal.
Because the matrices, contaminants, and treatment processes for
sediments and soil/dust are similar, it is illogical that
treated soils and treated sediments will be disposed of
differently. Assuming that solidification renders soils
nonhazardous, as was demonstrated by bench-scale tests in the
RI/FS, the treated material need not be disposed of in a
hazardous waste landfill. Unnecessary disposal in a RCRA
landfill would incur unwarranted cost. If no sanitary landfill
will accept either the fixated sediments or soil/dust the cost
estimates in the Area II FS Report will be accurate but the
costs of Area I remediation will have been seriously
underestimated, by as much as 350 per cent.
3-11
6800F 7060-001-000
-------
4. VAULT
The companies agree that no action (Alternative v-l) is
appropriate for the vault. The existing combination of
chemical fixation and physical containment prevents the release
of contaminants to the environment. There has been some
representation that the design life of the vault is only thirty
years. There is no factual basis for that representation. The
vault was designed to be permanent (Gregor, 1974):
o A geological survey of the area (performed before the
vault was constructed) showed the area to be
extremely stable. The test laboratory described the
area as being so geologically stable that "buildings
as large as the Empire State Building could be built
there".
o The vault was excavated to fifteen feet below the
ground surface. The bottom of the vault is well
above the ground-water table, which lies about thirty
feet below the surface. Thus, the sediments in the
vault cannot contact ground water.
<*>
o The excavation was first line'd with two inches of
asphalt for sealing and water proofing. Then a
one-foot layer of blue Putnam clay was laid over the
asphalt. This clay layer was intended to trap any
cadmium which might leach out of the sediments. The
clay has a high affinity for cadmium (also see EPA,
1978).
o Disposal of the dredged sediments was planned to
minimize leachate generation. The dredge spoils were
dried to the extent possible before placement in the
vault. The vault cover has kept them dry, and vent
pipes were installed in the vault which could carry
off evaporating water.
\
o Ttte cadmium in the sediments was initially barely
soluble.^ Tests on the sediments showed that
prolonged shaking with river or ground-water released
but 0.03 to 0.08 mg/1 cadmium into the water. To
make the cadmium even less soluble, powdered
limestone was added to the sediments during disposal.
4-1
6803F 7060-001-000
-------
Should the vault ever be breached, the crushed
limestone mixed with the sediments provides further
insurance that metals will not leach from the
sediments. The volume of limestone added to the
sediments should theoretically provide over
1,000 years of stabilization, even subject to acid
rain of pH 4 (Francis, 1984).
o The sediments were covered with a four-layer cap to
protect them from infiltration and erosion. The cap
consists of: (1) a layer of gravel, to trap and vent
evolving gases; (2) compacted clay; (3) asphalt; and
(4) earth, graded and seeded. The earthen cover is
deep enough to protect the other layers from frost.
This design should ensure a stable, effective,
long-lasting cover.
With proper maintenance, the physical containment should last
indefinitely (Dr. H. Gregor, personal communication).
The purpose and extent of long-term monitoring of
vegetation and subsurface soils are unclear. The FS Report
states that "[t]he monitoring program would include inspection
of the cap as well as sampling and testing of groundwater using
the existing monitoring wells once everjj, month for a period of
30 years.... Maintenance is required to remove deep-rooted
vegetation from the cap." (EBASCO 1988b, page 4-18). However,
the PRAP presents a different monitoring plan: "[a] long-term-
groundwater monitoring program and periodic inspection of the
vault capping would be included in this alternative in order to
check the integrity of the vault. This maintenance program
would also involve sampling of soil underneath the vault and
vegetation on top of the vault."
Several points are of concern:
>
\
o Sampling of vegetation and sub-vault soils was not
planned during the FS and was presumably added to the
PRAP as an afterthought.
o Vegetation samples will be meaningless if, as the FS
Report states, deep-rooted vegetation will be
periodically removed from the top of the vault. The
roots of the remaining vegetation would not penetrate
through several.feet of earth and the remaining
layers of the cap to reach the entombed sediments.
4-2
6803F 7060-001-000
-------
o The frequency, extent and methods for sampling soil
beneath the vault are not specified. It is unlikely
that such sampling would provide meaningful
information. Random samples of soil beneath the
vault would only indicate whether or not the vault
had suffered catestrophic failure in the vicinity of
the specific sampling point(s). These "hit or miss"
soil samples would not provide any more useful
information than routine ground-water monitoring.
Furthermore, these samples would be difficult to
obtain, and sample collection might even damage the
containment structure.
As a result of these concerns, the Companies propose that
routine monitoring of the vault area be limited to ground-water
monitoring. Sampling and analysis of subvault soils and
surface vegetation would incur additional cost without
providing useful information.
4-3
6803F 7060-001-000
-------
FOOTNOTES
1. (page 2-2)
The retardation factor (R) can be calculated using the
equation
R » 1 * (Pb)(f)(Koc)/n
where P& (soil bulk density) - 1.5 gm/cra3; f (fraction
of organic carbon) • 0.01; Koc (organic carbon
distribution coefficient) - 126; and n (porosity) - 0.3.
2. (page 2-2)
From the available soil and ground-water data, it can be
estimated that approximately 6,000 gms of TCE are
associated with the contaminant plume (in the soil and
ground-water). If the RI's estimate of the contaminant
flux from the site were accurate, the contaminants would
have been flushed from the site in less than a month.
3. (page 2-3)
The EA and the FS assume several contradictory bases for
the derivation of remediation goals for groundwater. The
resultant discussions are confusing and misleading and
misdirected the derivation of remediation goals for soil.
"Acceptable risk" is variously defined by the 10~6 risk
level, zero risk, nondetectable concentrations of
contaminants, or the risk associated with either
promulgated or proposed MCLs.
The FS refers to "The nondetectable remediation level"
(page 1-25, third full paragraph) and the EA contains a
weak justification for remediation to the zero or
nondetectable level for certain contaminants. Of most
concern is the discussion in section 7.6.1 of the EA
(EBASCO 1988a, page 7-33). That discussion contains both
technical and logical errors.
The context of that discussion is that acceptable levels
of organic compounds may be back-calculated from exposure
assumptions -for-.a selected level of risk. The selected
level of risk is not clearly stated or justified in the
EA. (It appears from the calculations that the selected
level of risk from exposure to all groundwater
constituents was the 10~6 risk level). As a result of
these calculations, the.EA states that
6805F 7060-001-000
-------
"Acceptable water concentrations are: trichloroethylene,
3 ug/1; chloroform, 0 ug/1; tetrachloroethene, 0 ug/1;
1,1,1-trichloroethane, 0 ug/1; and 1,2-dichloroethane, 0
ug/1. Since these levels are below normal detection
limits, it is anticipated that a non-detectable
concentration in the groundwater would adequately protect
human health". (EBASCO 1988a, page 7-33)
This statement contains several errors or unexplained
points.
o One of the listed compounds, 1,1,1-trichloroethane
(TCA), is neither a known or a suspected carcinogen.
Neither the Public Health Risk Evaluation Database
(EPA, 1988b) nor the Superfund Public Health
Evaluation Manual (EPA, 1986) characterize this
compound as a carcinogen. Because TCA is not a
carcinogen, the potential health effects should be
gauged from the verified Reference Dose (RFD) rather
than a carcinogenic potency factor. It is
interesting to note that the acceptable level of TCA
in drinking water calculated from the RFD is 3150
ug/1 (EPA, 1988b).
o The allotment of risk between the ground-water
constituents is not explained. A potential risk of
approximately 9.43 x 10~7 was assigned to
trichloroethylene and zero risk to the remaining
potential carcinogens. The re»fsons for this risk
distribution were not presented in the EA.
o The wording of the quoted statement appears to
contradict the findings by the US EPA and its New
York State counterpart that non-zero MCLs are
acceptable and fully protective of human health for
the listed constituents. Furthermore, although the
EA refers to "non-detectable concentration in the
groundwater", MCLs are neither undetectable, nor must
they necessarily be met in the ground water to
protect human health. Attainment of MCLs in potable
water at the point of exposure will protect human
health.
^
4. (page 2-4^
A^
Section 5-3 of the RI describes a model which attempts to
quantify the potential leaching of VOCs from soil to ground
water using partition coefficients. While the basic premise is
sound, several components of. the model and the resulting
conclusions are questionable.
6805F 7060-001-000
-------
o The model is based upon very little data, and the
calculations presented in the RI (EBASCO 1988a, pages
5-31 and 5-32) appear to be based upon worst-case
concentrations. These concentrations do not
represent the larger mass of soil.
o The calculations rely on an unexplained value for
total organic carbon (TOC) in soil. It appears that
the given value is not site-specific. (The RI cites
Brady, 1974 as a reference for the TOC value;
however, that reference is not listed in the
References section. Instead, there is a reference to
Bradley, 1984 IN: The Nature and Property of
Soils.)
o The distribution coefficient, Kg, was used
incorrectly to estimate contaminant concentrations in
the ground water. The concentration in the ground
water is equal to the concentration in the soil
divided by the distribution coefficient, rather than
the soil concentration multiplied by the distribution
coefficient as shown in the RI (EBASCO 1988a, page
5-31). Therefore, as an example, the concentration
of chloroform in the ground water related to the
maximum soil contamination should be estimated at 125
to 273 ug/1, rather than 52.8 to 115 ug/1 (EBASCO
1988a, page 5-34).
o Regardless of which calculation1 method is used, the
existing ground-water data contradict the model. For
example, chloroform was found in only three wells,
and at far lower concentrations than predicted: 1
ug/1 (5S), 11 ug/1 (7SA), and 19 ug/1 (VI). (Data
from RI Table 5-6.) PCE was predicted to range
between 28.5 and 34.5 ug/1 in the ground water as a
result of soil contamination, yet it was found in
only one well during one round of ground water
sampling, at 2.4 ug/1 (by comparison, the MCL is 5
ug/1). No attempt was made in the RI/FS to reconcile
the model predictions with the existing ground water
data.
5. (page 3r3)
The risk'assessment also estimates the potential adverse
health effects associated with inadvertently ingesting cadmium
containing soils and dusts. Many assumptions used in
evaluating the soil and dust ingestion scenario also lead to
overestimation of exposure and risks. For example, the risk
assessment assumed 420 milligrams of soil per day is ingested
by humans. More recent evidence indicates that between 50 and
100 milligrams per day is more realistic (Clausing et al.
6805F 7060-001-000
-------
1987) . The risk assessment also assumes that a recreational
user (or tresspasser) goes on the site 2 days per week, five
months per year, for 70 years. Given that the site is fenced
and that it contains nothing that would encourage repeated
lifelong visits by a recreational user, the estimates used in
the risk assessment are not appropriate. Workers are assumed
to be on site for 48 weeks per year for 50 years per lifetime.
These too are overestimates. 48 weeks per year does not
account for a worker being sick, or for all possible holidays,
or for increased vacation time as the worker gains seniority
(which must happen if the worker remains with the company for
50 years, as assumed by the risk assessment). Assuming that a
worker remains at one company for fifty years leads to an
overestimate of risk and is also unrealistic. One need not
look further than the site's ownership history to demonstrate
that point.
6. (page 3-3)
In addition to the assumptions of concern, the risk
assessment appears to contain calculation or transcription .
errors:
The concentration ranges given in the text (EBASCO
1988a, page 7-5) do not agree with those stated in
Table 7-2, the table from which all of the
calculations were derived. The origin of the values
given in the table should be defined.
Calculating the risk from vola-tile "organics" using
the data given in the table (Table 7-2) gives risks
which are different from those stated in the text
(EBASCO 1988a, page 7-12, chloroform is 10-fold lower)
The back-calculation of the allowable soil
concentration to yield a 1 x 10~*> risk for workers
on site is flawed. The calculation estimates a daily
dose which, if taken every day over a 70 year period,
could lead to an excess a lifetime cancer risk of 1 x
10~6, but for this approach to be acceptable the
risk calculation should factor in a lifetime exposure
to the worker.
Calculation of the amount of time spent on-site by
trespassers:
2d x 4w x 5m x 70y - 2800 days
\ 7d x 4w x 5m x 70y - 23520 days
they also^assume an 8 hr day so for workers this is
5 x 48 x 50 - 12,000
These values compute to different values than those
given in the ,text.
Result of the ingestion scenario:
qT 5590 _ 0.42 x 0.22 _7_ - ... v 10-4
21 ' 70 * 1000 * 100 - 5'155 X 10
6805F 7060-001-000
-------
Cd ADI - 2.9 x 10-4 HI = 1.8
Using the highest concentration of cadmium in dust of
15,300 given in the text:
5.155 x 10-4 x 15300 . 1.41 x 10~3
5580
HI = 4.875
The number stated in the text is 48, 10 times this
value.
o Inhalation Dose or Carcinogenic Risk: Table 7-12
shows the calculation of the risk from the inhalation
of soil and dust on site, with the generic
calculation shown in Table 7-7. The risk assessment
uses standard EPA assumption for the calculation of
inhaled dose; 70 year life time, 20 meter cubed/day
inhalation rate. This assumes the worker or
visitor/trespasser remains on site for the duration
of their life. The HI given earlier in the text
recognizes this problem and includes a factor to
account for this:
Worker » 0.22 Trespasser » 0.048
These numbers should also be used in this calculation
o Table 7-12 adds the risk from dust and soil. This
implies the worker spends an 8 hour day both inside
the warehouse and outside the warehouse. This is
obviously a poor assumption.
7. (page 3-5)
The concentration of cadmium in so"il relates to the ACGIH
limit on airborne cadmium dust as follows:
(0.05 mg Cd dust/m3 air)/(0.017 mg particulates/m3 air)
- 2.94 mg Cd/mg soil
(assuming that all particulates are of soil origin). 2.94
mgCd/mg soil is physically meaningless because cadmium would
then exceed 100% of the soil mass; the result implies that up
to 100% cadmium in soil would not present a significant
inhalation hazard to exposed workers.
6805F 7060-001-000
-------
REFERENCES
Adriano, D.C., 1986. Trace Elements in the Terrestrial
Environment. Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc.
ATSDR, 1987. Toxicological Profile for Cadmium. Draft for
Public Comment, November 1987.
Clausing, P., B. Brunkreef, and J.H. Van Wijnen, 1987. A
Method for Estimating Soil Ingestion by Children. Int.
Arch. Occup. Environ. Med. 59:73-83.
EBASCO, 1988a. Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report,
Marathon Battery Company Site (Former Battery Plant
Grounds), village of Cold Spring, Putnam County, New
York. EPA Contract No. 68-01-7250, Work Assignment No.
112-2L37.0.
EBASCO, 1988b.' Draft Supplemental Feasibility Study Report,
Marathon Battery Company site (Former Battery Plant
Grounds),'Village of Cold Spring, Putnam County, New
York. EPA Contract No. 68-01-7250, Work Assignment No.
112-2L37.0.
EPA, 1978. Attenuation of Pollutants in Municipal Landfill
Leachate by Clay Minerals. EPA-600/2-78-157.
EPA, 1981. Health Assessment Document of Cadmium.
EPA-600/8-81-023. ^
EPA, 1985. Updated Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity Assessment
of Cadmium - Addendum to the Health Assessment Document
for Cadmium (May 1981) EPA/600/8-81/023.
EPA/600/8-83/025F.
EPA, 1986. Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual.
OSWER Directive 9285.4-1; EPA 540/1-86/060.
EPA, 1988a. Proposed Remedial Action Plan, Marathon Battery
Company Site, Putnam County, New York. June 1988.
EPA, 1988b. Public Health Risk Evaluation Database.
Office>of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
February; 19;, 1988.
•i
EPA, 1988c. Draft Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and. Feasibility Studies under CERCLA.
OSWER Directive 9355.3-01. Review Draft March 1988.
ERT, 1986. Comments of the Marathon Battery Company and Gould
Incorporated on the Supplemental Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study of the Marathon Battery
Superfund Site, Cold Spring, New York. Document No.
P-E340.
6650F 7060-001-000
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
Francis, G.Z., 1984. Landfilled Wastes Treated in Place.
Pollution Engineering, September 184, p. 37-39.
Gregor, H., 1974. Memorandum: Disposal of Spoils Dredged from
Foundry Cove. To: T. Gorman Reilly, Assistant United
States Attorney. November 21, 1974.
Gregor, H. Personal Communication, June 28, 1988.
Nelson, w., ATSDR Regional Representative, 1988. Memorandum:
Marathon Battery Site Consultation. To: Joel Singerman,
EPA Region II. June 10, 1988.
•Spenzler, J.D. and G.D. Thurston, 1983. Mass and Elemental
Composition of Fine and Coarse Particles in Six U.S.
Cities. J.A.P.C.A., 33:1162-1171.
Travis, C.C., S.A. Richter, E.A.C. Crouch, R. Wilson, E.D.
Klema, 1987. Cancer Risk Management: A review of 132
federal regulatory decisions. Environmental Science &
Technology, 21(5): 415-420.
6650F 7060-001-000
-------
LETTER FROM VINSON AND ELKINS JULY 6, 1988
COMMENT NO. RESPONSE
Section 2.1
As stated in the RI report on
page 4-28, the cross-sectional
area calculated using Darcy's
equation only represents the
cross-sectional area under the
influence of the aquifer
pumping test. The calculated
area of 26,722 ft2 is in
reality much less than the
actual aquifer discharge area
into East Foundry Cove.
Therefore, a discharge rate of
4.0xl05 gpd (300 gpm) is much
less than the actual natural
aquifer discharge into East
Foundry Cove. Also, the
groundwater discharge volume
presented on page 4-21
represents total groundwater
discharge. The discharge
volume presented by the PRP
consultant uses a cross-
sectional area of the plume
only. Since no off-site
monitoring wells were present
hydraulically downgradient
towards the cove, it would be
erroneous to assume that the
plume is only present on the
site. It is shown in the
report that the aquifer is
highly transmissive (127,589
gpd/ft) and has an
extraordinarily high flow
velocity (6.7 ft/day). An
aquifer with hydraulic
conditions such as these will
discharge more than 6750
ft3/day (50,490 gpd) presented
by the PRP consultant. By
using only the area of the
plume, one is assuming that
the plume is migrating as a
single slug. This is also an
erroneous assumption since
factors such as hydraulic
dispersion play a.major role
in plume migration.
Therefore, it is more
realistic to use total
-------
Section 2.2
Section 2.3
Section 3.1.2
Section 3.1.3
\
groundwater discharge rather
than plume discharge.
Natural attenuation of the
groundwater is considered
completed when Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are
attained. The agency believes
that by removing the source of
groundwater contamination
(volatile organic-contaminated
soil) the natural attenuation
process will proceed at a
faster rate.
The Proposed Remedial Action
Plan (PRAP) states that the
existing monitoring wells will
be used to conduct the long-
term groundwater monitoring
program. At the request of
NYSDEC, EPA agreed to install
bedrock wells to be used as
part of the monitoring
program.
«?
After months of discussions
with representatives of
NYSDOH, ATSDR, NYSDEC, Vinson
and Elkins, and review of
written documentation from
ATSDR, EPA has decided that
the 20 ppm clean-up level is
protective of human health
and the environment. (see
attached ATSDR memo, Ebasco's
Risk Assessment and Peter
Grevatt's memo for further
details.)
According to SARA § 121(b),
disposal of hazardous
substances without treatment
is the least favored
alternative where practicable
treatment technologies are
available. It is the agency's
opinion that the PRPs proposed
remedy does not satisfy the
preference for treatment
called for in SARA.
Section 3.3
It is the responsibility of
NYSDEC to locate a suitable
-------
municipal solid waste landfill
to accept the fixated wastes
from the Marathon Battery
Company site. In the event
that a municipal landfill is
not available, EPA may have to
dispose of the waste in a
RCRA subtitle C landfill.
Section 4 The agency has reviewed all
the documents on the vault
submitted by Vinson Elkins.
Since the as-built drawings
for the vault are not
available, it is impossible
for the agency to accurately
determine the useful life of
the vault. It is clear
however, that the existing
vault does not meet the
minimum requirements of a
containment system as set
forth by RCRA (see attached
RCRA memo). Moreover, the
limestone treatment process
used on £he vault sediments
does noli permanently nor
significantly reduce the
mobility of the metals. (see
attached letter on the
limestone treatment.)
Accordingly, the agency
believes that removal of the
vault would be more protective
of human health.
-------
33OO
lOQt
TU.KVMQMC '13 ••l-Cflt
VINCI.AIN8-TH.CJI
VINSON & ELKINS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
"••T ClTV ClNTMB
ai« CONOBCtt AVCMUC
AUSTIN, TEXAS 76?OI-2«e6
OC tit 4»»-feiOO
IfOO TOAMMCbb CMOW CtNTr
lOOl •O»» AVtNUC
OAkCAB.TKXA* 7»«OI-f».
!• MO-TTOC
•>->e
!«••
orncc
AMIA AVC. N •»
. o. c. aooo«*ioo7
rtU**Oftf tOI •)• MOO TtLII *tt»O
July 13r 1988
CON DON WIX 1*9.
TCkOMODl 0" <**
Delivery by Federal Express
Ms. Magalie Beausejour,
Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency and. R«m«r!ial P.eapcr.ss Division
26 Federal Plaza, Room 23-102
New York, New York 10278
Re: Marathon Battery Company Site,
Cold Spring, New York
Dear Ms. Beausejour:
By letter of July 6, 1988, Marathon Battery Company and
Gould Inc. (the "Companies") submitted pomments on the draft
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and the
Proposed Remedial Action Plan ("PRAP") for Area II of the
referenced site. In those comments, the Companies presented
their reasoning in support of the recommended no-action
alternative for the vault. We understand EPA Region II is
considering the possibility of requiring excavation of the
vault despite the recommendation in the PRAP that no action
is necessary. Enclosed are supplemental comments of the
Companies, provided by ERT, in support of the no-action
alternative.
If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
\ ; / VINSON I ELKINS
Jeff Civins
Counsel for Marathon Battery
Company
JC:ab
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Beverly Kolenberg, EPA Region II
Ms. Lisa Ryan, U. S. Department of Justice
Mr. Michael C. Veysey, Gould Inc.
-------
Document No. 7060-001-001
Supplemental Comments of the
Marathon Battery Company and Gould
Inc. on the Vault in Area II of the
Marathon Battery Superfund Site
Cold Spring, New York
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
July 1988
ERT
An ENSR Company
-------
Document No. 7060-001-001
Supplemental Comments of the
Marathon Battery Company and Gould
Inc. on the Vault in Area II of the
Marathon Battery Superfund Site
Cold Spring, New York
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
July 1988
-------
This document supplements the Comments of the Marathon
Battery Company and Gould Inc. on the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study and Proposed Remedial Action
Plan for Area II of the Marathon Battery Suoerfund Site. Cold
Spring. New York submitted to EPA on July 6, 1988. This
supplement focuses on the vault on site which contains
stabilized sediments dredged from Foundry Cove during a
previous remedial action. Marathon Battery Company and Gould
Inc. ("the Companies") believe that the vault and the entombed
sediments do not pose a significant present or future risk to
public health or the environment and that they may safely
remain on site. The Companies reached this conclusion after
considering the construction of the vault, the nature of the
sediments contained within, and existing evidence that the
vault is stable. The risks and costs of excavation and removal
of the vault were also considered. Each of these factors is
discussed below.
Vault Construction
<-•
As stated in the Companies' previous comments, the vault
was designed to permanently contain the stabilized sediments.
Key construction details are repeated here to provide a basis
for further comments. Details on the vault construction were
provided in prior submittals.
A pre-construction survey showed that the area was
geologically stable. Therefore, geologic or seismic
disturbances should not threaten the vault's stability. The
vault was designed and constructed to effectively isolate the
contents from, ground and surface water: the base of the vault
is approximately fifteen feet above the ground water, and the
top, sides, and .bottom of the vault are sealed with layers of
clay and asphalt to prevent infiltration. The vault cap is
insulated by three to four feet of soil to protect it from
frost. Finally, the dredged sediments were mixed with
limestone to ensure that the metals are insoluble. In the
unlikely event that the sediments contacted water, only minute
amountfs of cadmium and nickel would leach away.
-------
Vault Effectiveness
An evaluation of. the vault indicates that it is and should
remain an effective containment system. That evaluation
included a quantitative evaluation of potential infiltration
through the vault using EPA's HELP model, and an evaluation of
the solubility of cadmium in the stabilized sediments. An
examination of existing monitoring data indicates that the
vault is now effective, fourteen years after construction.
Future monitoring will ensure that, in the highly unlikely
event that further remedial action were to be necessary, it
would occur quickly and effectively.
• The cadmium in the stabilized sediments contained
within the vault should not be particularly soluble
or mobile, should the sediments contact water.
Cadmium forms a sulfide compound in anaerobic
river sediments (EPA, 1979; Adriano, 1986).
Cadmium sulfide is very insoluble and very
stable. Much of the cadmium in the dredged
sediments was probably in., the form of insoluble
cadmium sulfide. **
Dredged sediments were thoroughly mixed with
limestone before disposal. The addition of
limestone created alkaline (basic) conditions in
the sediment and resulted in the formation of
insoluble cadmium carbonate and hydroxide
compounds.
Adsorbtion further immobilizes cadmium in
sediment or soil. Ionic cadmium adsorbs to
negatively-charged exchange sites on clays,
organic particulates, and hydrous oxides within
the soil (Adriano, 1986).
\
• A model of potential leakage from the vault indicates
that, even applying extremely conservative
assumptions - in particular that one or more
components 'of the vault have failed, only minute
amounts of cadmium would be anticipated to leach from
the enclosed sediments.
7140F 7060-001-001
-------
EPA developed the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill
Performance (HELP) model to facilitate estimation of
the amounts of surface runoff, subsurface drainage,
and leachate that may be expected to result from the
operation of a wide variety of possible landfill
designs. The program models the effects of
hydrologic processes including precipitation, surface
storage, runoff, infiltration, percolation,
evapotranspiration, soil moisture storage, and
lateral drainage using a quasi-two-dimensional
approach. Lateral inflow and surface runon are not
accounted for by the model. The HELP model performs
a sequential daily analysis to determine runoff,
evapotranspiration, percolation, and lateral drainage
for the landfill (cap, waste cell, leachate
collection system, and liner) and obtain daily,
monthly, and annual water budgets.
In this analysis, the HELP model was used to estimate
the maximum amount of water percolation from the base
of the vault. The maximum flux of cadmium from the
bottom of the vault was estimated from the water flux
by accounting for chemical and physical processes
within the waste cell and in the underlying barrier
clay layer.
All input parameters for the model were chosen
conservatively and several scenarios were
investigated. The basic vault design was modeled as
a layered system with a vegetated topsoil overlying a
compacted fill. Underlying these two layers were a
layer of asphalt paving and a layer of putnam clay,
followed by a drainage layer. Those layers cover the
waste cell and then two more layers of clay and
asphalt. The scenarios modeled were as follows:
Scenario 1: drainage layer assumed to have
failed (no drainage layer); asphalt assumed to
be a barrier soil with hydraulic conductivity of
10~8 cm/sec, one order of magnitude more
protective than the RCRA design permeability of
the barrier clay layer; clay layer assumed to
v have hydraulic conductivity of 10~7 cm/sec.
\ v •
Scenario 2: drainage layer assumed to have
failed (no drainage layer); asphalt assumed to
be a semi-permeable liner with 1% leakage; clay
layer assumed to have hydraulic conductivity of
10~7 cm/sec..
7140F 7060-001-001
-------
Scenario 3: drainage layer assumed to have
failed (no drainage layer); asphalt assumed to
be a semi-permeable liner with 10% leakage; clay
layer assumed to have hydraulic conductivity of
10-' cm/sec.
Scenario 4: drainage layer assumed to have
failed (no drainage layer); asphalt assumed to
be a semi-permeable liner with 50% leakage; clay
layer assumed to have hydraulic conductivity of
10~7 cm/sec.
The simulations were performed for a twenty year
period. A detailed explanation of the assumptions
made in the analysis, the model input parameters, the
vault scenarios, and the chemical and physical
processes considered is presented in the Appendix.
The results of the simulations are shown in Table 1.
The' simulations are all conservative in that
conservative input parameters were chosen. All of
the estimated fluxes of cadmium through the base of
the vault are quite low. When the asphalt is modeled
as a barrier layer with hydraulic conductivity of
10~8 cm/sec, the estimated cadmium flux is 9.2 x
10~5 grams/yr. In magnitude, this value is between
the results for the asphalt modeled as a
semi-permeable liner with 1% and 10% leakage,
respectively. Even in the mo»t conservative case of|
the asphalt semi-permeable liner with 50% leakage,
the estimated cadmium flux is only 2.1 x 10~3
grams/yr, a minute amount. In everyday terms, this
amount is approximately one-thousandth of a common
four-gram aspirin tablet. These four scenarios
provide a conservative range of expected cadmium
fluxes from the base of the vault.
Current soil and ground-water monitoring data
indicate that the vault is sound. In the remedial
investigation, soil and ground-water samples were
collected from locations VI through V5 in the
vicinity of the dredged spoils vault. Concentrations
of metals in these samples did not indicate that
leakage had occurred from the vault. In soil samples
collected between the depths of 30 and 50 feet below
ground surface, cadmium levels were nondetectable,
cobalt levels were less than 9.5 mg/kg and nickel
levels were less than 21.9 mg/kg. These levels are
within the range of concentrations detected in what
are presumably uncontaminated samples from locations
7140F 7060-001-001
-------
TABLE 1
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM YEARLY CADMIUM FLUXES THROUGH
THE BOTTOM OF THE VAULT
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Fluz of Cadmium Through
Bottom of Vault (arams/vr)
9.2 z 10"5
2.0 z 10
2.1 z 10
2.1 z 10
-5
-5
-5
7140F 7060-001-001
-------
3S and 2S.(2.5 to 7.6 mg/kg cadmium, 7.5 to 12.3
mg/kg cobalt and 18.4 to 39 mg/kg nickel). Cadmium
and nickel concentrations reported in shallow soil
samples collected from the vault area at 0 to 2 feet
in depth are only slightly elevated above background,
levels. Metals concentrations are unlikely to be du
to stabilized dredge spoils which were buried in the
vault at depths between 3 and 15 ft. The soil data
support the conclusion made in the remedial
investigation report that no leakage has occurred
from the vault.
Ground-water monitoring data further support that
conclusion. Five ground-water monitoring wells were
installed at distances between 15 and 70 feet
upgradient and downgradient of the vault. The wells
closest to the vault in the downgradient direction
(V3 and V5) are located such that ground-water
contaminants would be detected if the integrity of
the'vault had deteriorated. Due to the highly
transmissive nature of the overburden aquifer
ground-water contaminants would also quickly reach
the wells farther down gradient/ if a release from
the vault occurred. Because the dredge spoils have
been 'isolated at least 15 feet above the water table,
contaminants would have to be leached downward in
order to impact the ground water. Therefore, it is
expected that the wells located adjacent to the vault
would provide a good detection?monitoring system.
Cadmium, cobalt and nickel wefe not detected in any
of the five wells sampled during the remedial
investigation, again demonstrating that no leakage
from the vault has occurred. This conclusion was
reached in the Remedial Investigation (EBASCO 1988,
page 5-30).
The proposed program to monitor the five wells around
the vault and to periodically inspect the condition
of the cap and fencing will ensure that any damages
are quickly repaired and leakage quickly detected.
The contract-required quantitation limits established
by the EPA for cadmium, cobalt and nickel are 5, 50
and 40 ug/1, respectively (U.S. EPA Inorganic SOW
7/85). The drinking water standard for cadmium is 10
ugAl; therefore, if a 5 ug/1 detection limit for
cadmium is achieved, the monitoring program will
successfully indicate whether concentrations in the
ground water approach or have exceeded drinking water
standards. No drinking water standards have been
established for cobalt or nickel. The concentration
calculated from the verified reference dose for
nickel is 700 ug/1. The detection limit of 40 ug/1
would ensure that leakage would be detected long
before the release posed a significant threat.
7140F 7060-001-001
-------
Risks and Costs of ExeavaMnn and Removal
The Companies' final consideration was the potential risks
and costs associated with excavating the vault and its
contents, and disposing of the material off-site.
There are both potential human health and environmental
risks associated with the excavation, transportation, and
redisposal of the vault and its contents. The following
discussion identifies and qualitatively describes these
potential risks.
• Health risks associated with excavation
In general, the potential human health risks
associated with excavation can be divided into two
categories: (1) risks to workers and other people in
the vicinity of the site from exposure to hazardous
chemicals; and (2) risks, primarily to workers, from
physical hazards as a result of using heavy equipment
to excavate the contents of the vault.
Human Health Risks Posed by Chemical Exposure
Human health risks associated with exposure to
hazardous chemicals during and after excavation
can occur in several ways. Removal of the
existing cap that covers the vault would expose
the stabilized sediments. This material could
be suspended in air by wind or operation of
heavy equipment. Rainfall during remediation
could erode sediment particles away and
transport them offsite and into Foundry Cove.
Stockpiling of excavated sediment could also
result in airborne releases, especially if
remediation occurs during dry periods. If
remediation occurred during a wet period,
rainwater runoff would transport the material
around and off the site.
\ ^ ' '•
\ The ^.potential releases discussed above could
result in worker exposure to contaminants via
inadvertent ingestion and inhalation. The
magnitude of exposures and risks is difficult to
determine but could be high if appropriate
precautions were not taken. Even with such
precautions, foreseen (floods) and unforeseen
(accidents) occurrences could lead to
significant worker exposures. Because some
contaminant releases are anticipated to occur
7
7140F 7060-001-001
-------
during excavation, people in the vicinity of the
site are likely to be exposed to contaminants.
If such exposures and risks were to occur
because of an accident or flood, they would be
significant in and of themselves, but they are
particularly significant when compared to the
risks posed by the site under current
conditions. Anyone gaining access to the site
during remediation could have significant
exposures and risks, far exceeding any posed by
the site in its current state.
Human Health Risks Posed by Physical Hazards
Worker health risks due to physical hazards as a
result of excavation, transportation, and
redisposal of the vault are another important
concern. In the ensuing discussion, risks of
death due to occupational accidents are compared
to risks of contracting cancer following
exposure to potentially carcinogenic materials
from the site. The physical hazards associated
with operating and directing heavy field
equipment such as backhoes and bulldozers are
well known, and thus perhaps easily overlooked,
but they are significant nonetheless and are
much greater than the cancer risks estimated
from exposure to potentially carcinogenic
compounds at the site.
-------
risk estimates are based on assumption and
extrapolation, contain a great deal of
uncertainty, and represent upperbound estimates
of risk based on worst case exposures. The
statistics for deaths of construction workers
due to accidents are based on actuarial data and
therefore are much more precise than cancer risk
estimates. At present the stabilized sediment
within the vault poses little to no cancer risk,
but its cleanup via excavation and redisposal
will subject workers to a very real risk of
death.
• Risks associated with transportation
At least 300 trucks will be needed to haul the
excavated material away for disposal. That
represents a substantial volume of traffic through
the village of Cold Spring. The additional traffic
increases the risk of automobile accidents, and a
truck accident could easily result in a spill of
contaminated material. In addition, the traffic due
to over 300 heavy trucks will increase the wear on
local roadways.
• Risks associated with redisposal
Redisposal of excavated material presents some risk
of injury to landfill workers ^analogous to the risks
to onsite construction workers'. It is important to
note that redisposal does not change the potential
risk of a release of contaminants, relative to
continued containment in the vault on site.
Excavation of the vault and its contents and redisposal
off-site will not be cost-effective. The Feasibility Study
Report describes two alternatives for excavation and off-site
disposal of the vault: Alternative v-3, sediment
excavation/fixation/ off-site disposal, and Alternative V-6,
sediment excavation/off-site treatment and disposal. These
alternatives'were estimated to cost a total of $4,840,000 and
$3,930,000 (present^worth), respectively. The necessity for
treatment is doubtful, because the sediments were already
treated, and as a result these costs may be overestimates.
Nonetheless, these alternatives are more than ten times more
expensive than continued monitoring and maintenance of the
existing vault. That alternative was estimated to cost only
$230,000 (present worth). The ten-fold increase in cost
7140F . 7060-001-001
-------
associated with excavating and redisposing of the vault will
not result in greater protection of public health and the
environment. In fact, as described above, it may increase
certain risks.
Conclusions
Continued containment of the stabilized sediments within
the on-site vault represents a permanent remedy which now
protects and will continue to protect human health and the
environment. As such, it fulfills-the cleanup standards of
Section 121 of SARA. Excavation and redisposal of the vault
does not.
"Remedial actions shall attain a degree of cleanup of
hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants
released into the environment and of control of
further release at a minimum which assures protection
of human health and the environment. Such remedial
actions shall be relevant and appropriate under the
circumstances presented by the release or threatened
release of such substance, pollutant, or
contaminant." (SARA § 121 (d)(l)).
Chemical treatment of the dredged sediments and
containment within the vault has ensured and will
continue to ensure that human health and the
environment are protected from a release of hazardous
substances. Excavation and offsite redisposal would
provide no additional assurance. Continued
containment of the stabilized sediments within the
vault is a relevant and appropriate remedial action
under the circumstances.
"Remedial actions in which treatment which
permanently and significantly reduces the volume,
toxicity or mobility of the hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants is a principal element,
are to be" preferred over remedial actions not
involving such treatment. The offsite transport and
disposal of hazardous substances or contaminated
materials without such treatment should be the least
favored alternative remedial action where practicable
treatment technologies are available" SARA § 121
10
7140F 7060-001-001
-------
"EPA ezpects that treatment of the principal threat
at a site, with priority placed on treating highly
toxic, highly mobile wastes, will frequently be
combined with engineered and/or nonengineered
controls to contain and/or prevent exposure to
treatment residuals and untreated waste." (Preamble
to the February 1988 draft National Contingency Plan)
The sediments contained within the vault were treated
to render metals immobile. Chemical fixation of the
metals in the dredged sediments and entombment within
the stable vault permanently and significantly
reduced the mobility and the tozicity of the waste
material. All routes of potential exposure to the
waste material are effectively blocked.
Excavation and offsite disposal offers no additional
reduction in volume, toxicity, or mobility of the
metals in the sediment. In fact, excavation of the
entombed material would likely increase the volume of
material which must be disposed of: the rubble of
the clay layers may be partially disposed with the
sediments.
SARA clearly discourages offsite transportation and
disposal of waste material where equally viable and
protective alternatives exist.
• "In assessing alternative remedial actions, the
President shall take into account... the potential
threat to human health and the environment associated
with excavation, transportation, and redisposal, or
containment." (SARA § 121 (b)(l))
Excavation of the vault presents a risk to workers on
site and potentially to nearby residents.
Transportation of the excavated material to a
landfill presents further risks. Redisposal will not
reduce or change the potential for hazardous
constituents to leach from the sediments, and thus
present a health risk; instead excavation and
redisposal will merely relocate the material. Thus,
excavation of the vault and redisposal will increase
the potential risk to the public from excavation and
transportation without changing the potential risk
from disposed sediments.
i v
• The selected remedy must be cost effective. (SARA
§ 121 (a)) '
"The mandate to select remedies that are
cost-effective requires EPA to ensure that the costs
of remedial actions are in proportion to their
overall effectiveness relative to other remedies
11
7140F 7060-001-001
-------
under consideration. This requirement establishes
the efficient use of resources as a standard for
Superfund response actions, and reflects a desire to
address as many hazardous waste sites as possible to
maximize overall protection of human health and the
environment." (Preamble to the February 1988 draft
National Contingency Plan)
Maintenance of the on-site vault will
cost-effectively ensure protection of human health
and the environment from the contained sediments.
Excavation and offsite disposal of the vault would
incur a cost of approximately $3,930,000 to
$4,840,000, without providing additional protection
of human health and the environment. In fact, as
discussed previously excavation and redisposal would
increase the risk in the short term. The cost of
excavation and redisposal of the vault is not in
proportion to its overall effectiveness relative to
maintenance of the on-site vault.
In summary, the Companies believe that continued
monitoring and maintenance of the vault will cost-effectively
protect human health and the environment. Excavation of the
vault and redisposal off-site is not technically justifiable.
\
12
7140F 7060-001-001
-------
APPENDIX
13
7140F 7060-001-001
-------
APPENDIX
The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP)
model was developed to facilitate estimation of the amounts of
surface runoff, subsurface drainage, and leachate that may be
expected to result from the operation of a wide variety of
possible landfill designs. The program models the effects of
hydrologic processes including precipitation, surface storage,
runoff, infiltration, percolation, evapotranspiration, soil
moisture storage, and lateral drainage using a
quasi-two-dimensional approach. Lateral inflow and surface
runon are not accounted for by the model. The HELP model
performs a sequential daily analysis to determine runoff,
evapotranspiration, percolation, and lateral drainage for the
landfill (cap, waste cell, leachate collection system, and
liner) and obtain daily, monthly, and annual water budgets.
Both a user's guide (EPA, 1984a) and model documentation (EPA,
19845) are available.
The model maintains five years of default climatological
•9
data for 102 cities throughout the United States. The model
also stores default parameters for soil characteristics and
parameters related to seven types of vegetative cover. In this
analysis default options were used in a manner appropriate to
the vault design.
The basic vault design was modeled as follows:
good grass cover
6 in. topsoil
36 in. compacted dirt fill
2.5 \in. \ asphalt paving
6 in. putnam.clay
12 in. fill with gravel (drainage layer)
waste cell
12 in. putnam clay
2 in. asphalt paving
14
7140F 7060-001-001
-------
The following assumptions were made in the analysis:
default climatological data for New York City was
used because it was the closest default city to Cold
Spring, NY (appro*. 50 miles).
default climatological data for the years 1974 to
1978 was assumed to repeat every five years from 1978
to 1993.
default parameters related to vegetative cover were
used; vegetative cover was assumed to be good
grass; conservative default values of evaporative
depth (10 in), winter cover (1.2), and leaf area
index were used.
default soil characteristic parameters were used as
follows :
the topsoil was assumed <£o have the soil
characteristics of the most highly conductive
sandy loam (USCS SM) given in the default soils
the compacted dirt fill was assumed to have the
soil characteristics of the most highly
conductive sandy loam (USCS SM) given in the
default soils and adjusted in the program for
compaction.
\ the putnam clay was assumed to have the soil
characteristics of the most highly conductive
barrier \soil given in the default soils. The
hydraulic conductivity given is 10~ cm/sec,
which is the current RCRA permeability standard
15
7140F 7060-001-001
-------
* the asphalt paving was modeled in two ways: (1)
it was assumed to have the soil characteristics
of the less conductive of the two barrier soils
given in the default soils; the hydraulic
—8
conductivity given is 10 cm/sec, which is an
order of magnitude lower than that of the
barrier clay; (2) it was assumed to be a
semi-permeable liner with leakage of 1%, 10%,
and 50%.
* the default Soil Conservation Service runoff
curve number for the soil texture was used.
the drainage layer was conservatively assumed to have
totally failed (to not exist).
The vault layer design and the layer thicknesses were
obtained from design drawings.
The vault scenarios investigated were as follows. All
scenarios included a clay layer with 1,0*" hydraulic
conductivity.
Scenario 1: drainage layer assumed to have failed
(no drainage layer); asphalt assumed to be a barrier
soil with hydraulic conductivity of 10**-8 cm/sec,
one order of magnitude lower than the RCRA design
permeability of the barrier clay layer.
Scenario 2: drainage layer assumed to have failed
(no drainage layer); asphalt assumed to be a
N
semi-permeable liner with 1% leakage.
\
Scenario 3:< drainage layer assumed to have failed
(no drainage layer); asphalt assumed to be a
semi-permeable liner with 10% leakage.
16
7140F 7060-001-001
-------
Scenario 4: drainage layer assumed to have failed
(no drainage layer); asphalt assumed to be a
semi-permeable liner with 50% leakage.
The results of the simulations were estimates of the
average annual leachates fluxes (ft /year) through the bottom
of the vault.
The calculated fluz of cadmium through the bottom of the
vault is based on the modelled fluz of the leachate, the
estimated dissolved concentration of cadmium, and the
retardation of cadmium through the bottom due to adsorption
onto the clay liner. The model conservatively neglected
adsorbtion onto the sediments themselves.
The calculation of the concentration of cadmium in
solution is based on the worst-case scenario that the cadmium
has reached its solubility limit. Due to the limestone
(calcium carbonate) that was added to the system for
stabilization, the predominant forms of cadmium are expected to
be cadmium hydroxide, Cd(OH),, and cadmium carbonate,
« if
Cd(CO-). Stumm and Morgan (1981) show 'that for a closed
system containing calcium carbonate, the pH is 9.9 and
pCO~ is 4.4. The maximum solubility of cadmium has been
calculated for both cadmium hydroxide and cadmium carbonate to
determine the limiting reaction.
For this system, cadmium carbonate controls the
equilibrium concentration of cadmium in solution. The
equilibrium constant for cadmium carbonate is 11.4
(Santillan-Medrano and Jurinak, 1975), thus
\
[Cd2*] CCO"2] - 10"11*4 moles/liter
"i
[Cd2*] - 10"7 moles/liter
\
[Cd2*] - l.lxlO"5 grams/liter.
Therefore, the maximum concentration of cadmium in
solution is approximately 1.1x10" grams/liter.
17
7140F 7060-001-001
-------
The cadmium transport through the clay liner will be
retarded due to adsorption of cadmium onto the clay. The
retardation factor, R, is calculated as
R . 1 + p. x k,/8
where pfa is the bulk density of the sediment, k. is the
partition coefficient and 9 is the sediment porosity. The
bulk density is assumed to be 1.5 gm/cm , and the porosity is
assumed to be 40%. Battelle (1984) found distribution
coefficients for montmorillonite clay to average around 140
ml/gm. The retardation factor is thus found to be 526.
The flux .of cadmium can then be calculated from the
following equation:
Flux of Cadmium - (Flux of Water) x [Cd2*]/(Retardation
Factor)
The calculated values for the flux of cadmium form the
*?
HELP model simulation scenarios are foutid.in Table 1 of the
text.
\
18
7140F 7060-001-001
-------
REFERENCES
Adriano, D.C., 1986. Trace Elements in the Terrestrial
Environment. Springer-Verlag, NY.
Battelle, 1984. Chemical Attenuation Rates, Coefficients,
and Constants in Leachate Migration, Volume 1: A Critical
Review.
EBASCO, 1988. Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report,
Marathon Battery Company Site (Former Battery Plant
Grounds), Village of Cold Spring, New York. EPA Contract
No. 68-01-7250, Work Assignment No. 112-2L37.0.
EPA, 1979. Water-Related Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants,
Volume 1. EPA 440/4-79-029a.
EPA, 1984a. Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance
(HELP) Model: Volume I. User's Guide for Version 1.
EPA, 1984b. The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance
(HELP) Model: Volume II. Documentation for Version 1.
EPA/530-SW-84-010.
EPA, 1986. Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual. OSWER
Directive 9285-4-1; EPA 540/1-86/060.
National Safety Council. Accident Facts*, 1987 Edition.
Santillan-Medrano, J. and J.J. Jurinak, 1975. The Chemistry of
Lead and Cadmium in Soil; Solid Phase Formation. Soil
Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc., Volume 39.
Stumm, W. and J.J. Morgan, 1981. Aquatic Chemistry, An
Introdution Emphasizing Chemical Equilibria in Natural
Waters. Wiley-Interscience, N.Y., N.Y.
\
19
7140F 7060-001-001
-------
LETTERS FROM VINSON AND ELKINS-PRP
Representative - July 13, 1988
We have fully reviewed the information in the
July 6 and July 13, 1988 submittals. As
discussed earlier, it is impossible for the
agency to accurately determine the useful
life of the vault. It is clear however that
the existing vault does not meet the minimum
requirements of a containment system as set
forth by RCRA (see attached RCRA memo).
Moreover, the limestone treatment process
used on the vault sediments does not
permanently nor significantly reduce the
mobility of the metals. (see attached letter
on the comparison of the chemical fixation
process with the limestone treatment).
Accordingly, the agency believes that removal
of the vault would be more protective of
human health and the environment.
Alternatives for waste transport will be
considered during the design phase of this
project.
-------
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DIVISION HUNTSVIUE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
CORPS Or INGINlLRS
PROJECT
DEEP C02HY06020Q, Marathon Battery Site
O SITE OEV * GEO TECH
0 ENVIR PflOT ft UTIL
U ARCHITECTURAL
O STRUCTURAL
O MECHANICAL
O UFO TECHNOLOGY
O ELECTRICAL
O INSTR ft CONTROLS
O SAFETY O SYSTEMS ENG
U AOV TECH O VALUE ENG
U ESTIMATING O OTHER
U SPECIFICATIONS
REVIEW.
OA1E .
NAME _
-liil
ITPF
ggnfct aradlov
ITEM
PRAWIHQHO.
fttt RFFFRFMCF
COMMENT
ACTION
General
4
5
6
Coaaent
2.1
Coaaent
2.2
Comment
3.3
3.3
CoB*eot
4.0
HND FORM
The ERT report provides several valid points reducing the
size of the,remedial action, ill proposed actions would
also reduce DOD costs for 11. Many coaaeats debate the
validity of preliminary assuaptions based on a "worst
case" scenario. The applicability of this scenario can-
not be justifiably refuted. Other cosaents hinge on in-
consistencies within the report or the BOD and other
technical inaccuracies. Those coaaents are addressed
below.
Concur that discharge calculations in the E1T report
should not use puap test withdrawal rate; however, using
puap test recharge rate is aore applicable than using
pluae area at discharge to represent aquifer area.
Concur. II report supports the conclusion that leaching
of hasardous aaounts of cadaiua is not probable, there-
fore, raaoval of contaainated soil is not consistent with
"no action" decision for groundwater.
\
Concur. Rehabilitation of the sprinkler systea is not
supported by risk data.
Concur. The treated soil/dust is no aore hazardous t;han
treated sediaents and should be siailarly disposed.
Concur. Analysis of surface vegetation and subvault
soils would not be as accurate or useful as groundwater
data.
ACTION CODES:
A — ACCEPTED/CONCUR
O — ACTION DEFERRED
W - WITHDRAWN
N — NON-CONCUR
VE — VE POTEs^B^L/VEP ATTACHED
PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF THIS FORM ARE OBSOLETE
' 1
-------
LETTER FROM Scott Bradley, U.S. Army - July
12, 1988
COMMENT NO.
RESPONSE
1. Details for this comment
are found in the
responses to PRP
comments..
2. The U.S. Army concurs
with the comments
submitted by ERT. As
discussed earlier and as
stated in the RI report
on page 4-28, the cross-
sectional area calculated
using Darcy's equation
only represents the
cross-sectional area
under the influence of
the aquifer pumping test.
The calculated area of
26,722 ft2 is in reality
much less than the actual
natural aquifer discharge
area into East Foundry
Cove. Therefore a
discharge rate of
4.0xl05 gpd (300 gpm) is
much less than the actual
natural aquifer discharge
into East Foundry Cove.
Also the groundwater
discharge volume
presented on page 4-21
represents total
groundwater discharge.
The discharge volume
presented by the PRP
\ v . consultant uses a cross-
4 sectional area of the
plume only. Since no
v- \. off-site monitoring wells
were present
hydraulically
downgradient towards the
cove it would be
erroneous to assume that
the plume is only present
on the site. It is
shown in the report that
the aquifer is highly
-------
transmissive (127,589
gpd/ft) and has an
extraordinary high flow
velocity (6.7 ft/day).
An aquifer with hydraulic
conditions such as these
will discharge more than
the 6750 ft3/
-------
-1-
Meeting Marathon Battery Company Superfund Site (Site)
July 14, 1988, Region II
Attendance List Attached ' .
Marathon Battery Company and Gould, Inc. requested a meeting with
EPA, DEC and representatives of the Village of Cold Spring to
present their comments on the Proposed Remedial Action Plan
(PRAP) and to indicate to what extent they were willing to
participate in the remedial action for Area 2 of the Site.
At the commencement of the meeting Beverly Kolenberg, EPA
Office of Regional Counsel, stated that the statements made during
the meeting would be part of the administrative record, and a
memorandum of the meeting would be included in the administrative
record. Further, a decision would be made after the meeting on
whether to reopen the comment period. (That is a question for the
Regional Administrator.)
She stated that at present the new proposed National Contingency
Plan (NCP) is in "red border review" within the Agency. The
draft deals with questions relating to the selection of a remedy
after the 1986 amendments to Superfund. The subject of this
meeting is the appropriate remedy for Area 2 of the Marathon
Battery Company Site. ^
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthor-
ization Act of 1986 (SARA), 42 U.S.C. S9601 et seq. contains a
good deal of text attempting to define cleanup standards which
are important in this case. The relevant sections of CERCLA
include:
121(a)-appropriate remedial actions are those which are in accord-
ance with this section and to the extent practicable the NCP and
which provide for a cost effective response.
121(b)-states remedial actions in which treatment permanently
and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity or mobility of
hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants is a princi-
pal element. . .to\be preferred.
*c
The Section says that the Agency shall conduct an asssessment
of permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies
which at a minimum take into account:
A. Long term uncertainties associated with land disposal
B. The goals, objectives and requirement of RCRA (42 U.S.C.
6901 e_t seq.)
C. The persistence, toxicity, mobility and propensity to
-------
-2-
bioaccumulate of such hazardous substances and their constitu-
ents
D. Short and long term potential for adverse .health effects
from human exposure
E. Long term maintenance costs
F. The potential for future remedial action costs if the
alternative remedial action in question were to fail, and
G. The potential threat to human health and the enviro-
ment associated with excavation, transportion and redisposal
or containment.
121(d)- "degree of cleanup" ... Such remedial actions shall be
relevant and appropriate (ARAR) under the circumstances presented
by the release or threatened release of such substance, pollutant
or contaminant.
The source of ARARS under the statute includes "any standard,
requirement, criteria or limitation under federal law" and "any
promulgated standard, requirement, criteria or facilites siting
law that is more stringent than any federal standard."
>*
In sum, CERCLA, as amended requires that the remedy be cost effective
but adds that it must meet the requirements under other federal and
state environmental laws and that a priority be given to the
selection of a permanent remedy.
The final selection criteria are enumerated in Section 300.430(d)(3)(ii)
of the NCP:
-overall protection of human health and the environment
-compliance with ARARS
-long term effectiveness and permanence
-reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume
-short term effectiveness
-implementability
-cost \
-state acceptance •
-community acceptance
The remedial action decision is based on a balancing of the
selection of remedy criteria.
-------
-3-
Jeff Civins, Esq. on behalf of Marathon Battery Company and Gould,
Inc. (Companies) introduced their representatives and noted that
Professor Harry Gregor was invited here as a resource to provide
information about the Vault. The Companies' technical consultants
from ERT included Bob Clements, Kate Sellers and Bob Zoch.
Mr. Civins stated the following:
Area 2 was different from Areas 1 and 3. The Companies believe
that the Consent Agreement in 1973 (70 Civ. 4110) released them
from future liability for cleanup of Areas 1 and 3, and they are
not inclined to perform that cleanup. Their participation
therefore, is in commenting, not taking the lead. In addition,
they have serious concerns about the feasibility of the remedial
options.
Area 1 is owned by the State of New York.
Area 2 presents a different situation with the exception of the
Vault. The Companies were required to construct the Vault by
the government and the District Court. The Companies' concern
relates to the way process works with respect to the RI, FS
and the PRAP.
e&
The Companies have submitted comments but since the submittal
of comments, EPA may ignore the no action alternative and require
excavation of the Vault. Such a situation suggests that the process
is not working as it should. The public submitted a petition and
DEC commented on the PRAP. While public input is relevant, ultimately
a remedy is driven by environmental and not political solutions.
Professor Gregor designed and oversaw implementation of the Vault;
initial comments will address the Vault. Originally the plans and
specifications for the Vault were approved by the Court, the EPA,
DEC and New York State.
Mr. Civins said his agenda for the meeting was to discuss comments
from the Companies with respect to the RI/FS, and the PRAP,
except for Vault issues (to be dealt with last when the representative
of the Village wo,uld.; be in attendance ), the potentially
responsible parties, anfj options that might allow achievement of
goals with respect to the Site. He said that he was sorry that New
York State was not at the,meeting.
The Companies have supplemental comments to amplify their original
comments with respect to the vault. ERT comments were reviewed
by Marathon and Gould. They are evironmentally sound and cost
effective. The PRAP is a sound document but there are areas of
disagreement.
Ground Water: The Companies agree with the conclusion of EBASCO and
-------
-4-
EPA for no action. ERT's reasoning is different. EBASCO stated
a large flow through the Site will flush contamination. ERT
believes that the flow is not as great as EBASCO said, but the
amount of contamination in the ground water is signiticontly less
than suggested by EBASCO. Also ERT thinks that if the Village of
Cold Spring wants to use the ground water it is possible with
certain considerations - no threat, no remedial action required.
Also relevant with respect to soil cleanup.
For interior remediation of the plant itself, dust should be
addressed. The Companies are not in agreement with respect
to cleanup levels. No necessity to focus on suitablity of cleanup
level in the building because in agreement that the dust should
be removed. In contrast, the calculation of clean up levels in the
soils is different.
Another remediation option for soils which achieves the objectives
under SARA specifically is to excavate till levels are achieved.
Capping is an EPA rejected option. Bob Zoch suggested excavating
6" and paving. 75% of contaminated soil will be removed. The
advantage of this hybrid option is that this can significantly
reduce contamination on Site, immobilize cadmium, and reduce
trucking and treatment. There also are no significantly lower
transportation and construction risks. It is^Jfh environ-
mentally sound option in cost effective way.
The sprinkler system is not relevant, no justification for repair.
Rob Clements-
SARA criteria considered by ERT.
Kate Sellers-
Same conclusion as EPA on ground water, different calculation
with respect to flow, artificial flow rate used by EBASCO overestimated.
Retardation of VpCs, lower flow of water and chemicals through
the aquifer, same effect as EBASCO predicted.
VOCs and soil data basect on few sampling points, low concentration,
few data. Remediation of ,VOC in soils not justified
Volume calculations, not agreed with.
Water Supply Wells- Given concentrations and flux wells; well
near site, no VOCs. Only way there may be a problem is if a well is
put in the middle of the plume.
Monitoring Program - Bedrock monitoring as suggested in RI/FS but
not PRAP would be a good idea.
-------
-5-
Remedial Proposal for Soils:
Disagree with that for Vocs in soils; goal to prevent runoff.
Justification of cadmium level not provided. 50 ppm from risk
assessment - ERT has questions on the assumptions for this
and the 10~6 level. Some exposure assumptions could be less
conservative. Time that workers spend on the Site is lower than
in* the risk assessment. Mystified by the leaching of cadmium
from the soils to ground water. In sum, disagree with 50 ppm.
EPA's response was that the cleanup level for soils from ATSDR is
20 ppm based on a Department of Agriculture study of ingestion of
vegetables. Protective and cost effective. No risk based assumption
for background. Companies requested supporting data from ATSDR.
The Companies' view is that SARA does not say select an arbitrary
figure.* With their proposal, take out the bulk, permanently and
significantly reduce volume and toxicity. Excavated soil treated
on or off site. Paving will prevent dermal contact, ingestion,
dust in the air and run-off. This approach is a permanent solution
that will reduce toxicity, mobility and risk. If this remedy is
economically sound and cost effective, cleanuplevel is moot.
EBASCO's response was that 6" and paving of approximately six.
acres, approximately 5,000 cubic yards of material removed, and
capping is expensive. An area of the site is heavily vegetated
and not subject to removal. In further discussion, ERT clarified
that the hybrid proposed was interded to be implemented only in
contaminated areas. EBASCO will consider the option on removal
and paving, get agreement on the facts. The risk numbers are
relevant off-site. Further, they will have a dialogue on risk
assessment. If the option is a good one, the costs may be less.
With respect to ground water issues, they will identify issues of
agreement and disagreement. EBASCO will recalculate and reevaluate
based on the information provided at the meeting.
Dino Mularadelis, Village Attorney -
\ v
The community is alarmed about their lack of information. The
Village has not done any tests or exploring of property. Sufficient
testing of wells was not done.
i
There is a water shortage in the Village and they intended to hook
up to the Marathon well and then to also supply water to Nelsonville.
The County Health Department told the Village not to use the wells.
In addition, there is concern about the health of the public and
of former employees of the Companies.
-------
-6-
Jeff Civins said that The appropriate PRPs are the State of New
York and the Village of Cold Spring. From the Companies' view
the only question is whether they have an affirmative defense to
liability. The State of New York signed the consent decree and
has had responsibility for the Site. The state owns the bed of the
cove, the marshes, and the river and no third party defense is
available.
Key Points on the Vault
Marathon and Gould constructed the Vault with the restrictions
imposed by the Court. It was a joint effort and the Village,
the State and the Companies were involved. The deed was recorded
in the Village, and -it contained restrictions on the site of the
Vault. The plan for the construction was approved and the State
and the Village signed off. Now there is political pressure to
move the Vault, no scientific basis.
The Vault is effective, and cadmium is immobile. Analysis of
scenarios considered cadmium load to saturated and unsaturated
zones risks and costs of removal and requirements of SARA.
Concluded that no technical reason to remove Vault. Remedial
investigation information looked at by ERT indicated that Vault
is not leaking thus far. ^
**
Qualitative look at Vault: Sediments came from the river and
are somewhat insoluble. The sediments were mixed with limestone.
Metals are not very mobile. The Vault was constructed in an
area of geological stability, with one foot of clay, layer of
asphalt, solidified sediments and three or four feet of soil.
Quantitatively used EPA HELP model (copy attached), other New
York parameters. Even using worst case assumptions, next to no
cadmium would leach.
Risk - consulted actuarial data with respect to construction because
of the large amount of construction required and the number
trucks leaving the area - increased risk. Greater risk to move
the Vault than to leave it in place.
\ v ',
No evidence that any migration of cadmium through the soil or
from the soil to ground water. Was permanently demobilized in
accord with SARA. Does not pose a threat. No basis in the
record with respect to the lack of permanence of the remedy.
David Hird, U.S.D.O.J., added that permanence is a statutory
term.
EBASCO requested the "as built" drawings of the Vault and any
construction drawings and specificatons. Dr. Gregor indicated that
Niny Construction built the Vault. Mr. Niny is at (914) 831-2221.
Gregor also stated that a geological survey had been done and that
-------
-7-
may have been part of the records that Gorman Reilly of the U.S.
Attorney's Office had.
Where do we go from here? Recommendation that Mr. Civins would
make to the Companies:
Area 2, do something do not have the defenses that the Companies have
for Areas 1 and 3 (sued in 1971 and cannot be sued again). The
U.S. Army and New York State should be involved.. Village of
Cold Spring is not yet a prp.
On Site:
What proposed makes sense for inside the building. In
agreement with no action for the ground water. Invite the Army to
participate, or go against the Army for part of the cost. If option
with removal of the Vault is selected, costs will escalate. Companies
are not suggesting that government ignore the Vault; monitor it.
If there is a future problem with the vault, deal with it.
Triggering mechanism can be part of settlement with specified con-
tingencies. Vault was to be kept in repair under the original
consent decree. If monitoring detected a problem, deal with it,
not excavate.
s*
Off-Site Contamination: ATSDR memo indicated that concentrations of
20 ppm of cadmium in soils were the safe level. Companies want to
understand the level set by ATSDR. There are cleanup concerns of
the people in Cold Spring. More systematic sampling, then take the
data and decide what to do with it.
Area 3
Clear relationship between Areas 1 and 3. Companies propose to
make available experts to meet with the Agency and EBASCO to
discuss:
1. Toxcicity of cadmium in the aquatic environment
2. Effects of dredging
\ v
3. Restoration of the Wetlands
Personal concern of Mr. Civi.ns is that though immediate outfall
area is filled with junk, that Cove and Marsh appear healthy.
Concerned that the options irrevocably affect the environment
adversely.
In return for cleanup would want a release from liability with a
reopener for the Vault. Removal of the Vault would be a sticking
point, but Companies agree with EBASCO overall.
-------
-8-
The participants agreed to look into the matters raised and to
talk again. The meeting was adjourned.
\
-------
-------
HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL ^ BRIGHAM & WOMEN'S HOSPITAL
CENTER FOR BIOCHEMICAL AND BIOPHYSICAL SCIENCES AND MEDICINE
BERT L. VALLEE Mailing Adams:
Paul C. Cabot Professor Sttley G. Mudd Building
of Biochemical Sciences jyo Langvood Avtnue
Harvard Medical School Baton, Massachusetts 02115
Telephone: (6 i?)-73 *->367
August 19, 1988 Telex: 705717
Mr. Jeff Civins, Esq.
Vinson & Elkins
816 Congress Avenue
First City Centre
Austin, Texas 78701-2496
Dear Mr. Civins:
I have now reviewed the documents you sent me dealing with
the Marathon Battery Company site at Cold Spring Cove, Putnam
County, New York. These documents include the record of decision
for Area 2, excerpts from the remedial investigation/feasibility
study (RI/FS) for Area 2, EPA'S proposed remedial action plan
(PRAP), June 20, 1988, comments of the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation and of the Agency of Toxic Disease
Registry (ATSDR) on Area 2 and the draft ATSDR report on cadmium.
The regulatory decisions regarding the disposition of the site
apparently are based, to a large extent, on the supposed threats
of cadmium to human health cited in the extensive documentation
provided. It is my understanding that you would like me to
comment on these matters based both on my knowledge of and
research on the biological, medical, pharmacological and
toxicological characteristics of cadmium.
A restatement of the published facts bearing on these
matters would not serve much purpose. I do want to point out
some issues and problems which have not been addressed in most of
the textbooks or publications cited but which to me seem to be of
utmost importance to the issues at hand.
Among the- most important of these considerations are the
criteria employed to determine the normal metabolism of cadmium.
The facts show that it is not only tolerated well (Sherlock et
al., The Science of The Total Environment 29, 121, 1983;
Barltrop and Strehlow, The Lancet p. 1394,~l982) but potentially
plays physiological roles (Vallee and Ulmer, Ann. Rev. Biochem.
41, 91, 1972). Definitions for its conceivable pathological,
toxic effects are also required so that there are criteria for
its intolerance. Chemical analyses for cadmium and histological
as well as chemical examinations of body tissues and fluids are
the primary data for such evaluations.
At this juncture it must be emphasized that judgment of
normal and/or abnormal metabolism of any metal generally assumes
-1-
-------
Mr. Jeff Civins, Esq. -2- August 19, 1988
that the metal und;r examination has been ingested and is then
absorbed from the gastrointestinal canal to be excreted there or
in the urine. As a rule, the metal to be examined will be
provided in the diet through the food chain. If there is a
different channel for administration and absorption of the metal,
this of itself is part of the pathology.
The channel through which cadmium is taken in and absorbed
is the critical factor which determines the existence and nature
of its toxicity and intolerance, when cadmium is ingested as
part of the food chain, even seemingly very high concentrations
are totally harmless and innocuous (Sherlock et al., 1983;
Barltrop and Stehlar, 1982, see above). In fact, cadmium will
likely prove to be biologically essential, as is apparent from
its occurrence in a natural product, metallothionein.
However, when it is inhaled in relatively large quantities
it causes serious toxicity and disease. In this regard it
closely resembles zinc, copper and magnesium. All of these, like
cadmium, cause "metal fume fever", diseases which are prevented
by suitable industrial hygienic measures.
The inhalation of cadmium results in severe toxicity, and
the work of virtually all of the toxicologists that have studied
the role of cadmium in man has focused upon this particular route
of administration. By far the predominant part of this work has
been contributed by Friberg 'and his colleagues Kjelstrom,
Piscator and Nordberg at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm,
Sweden who have detailed this condition which affects individuals
working in cadmium smelters, the cadmium electroplating and
electric welding industry or wherever cadmium containing
electrodes are handled. These occupational exposures have raised
considerations regarding the content, body-burden, metabolism,
transport, distribution, excretion and biological half-time of
cadmium in tissues and biological fluids. All of these have been
scrutinized to serve as indexes of exposure to and concentration
of cadmium. Its effects and dose-effect relationships in chronic
poisoning have "been particularly important. Kidney damage,
anemia, and liver pathology have been seen. All can be prevented
by lowering the level of cadmium in the ambient environment and
removing the hazard imposed by the industrial work place.
It is for these relatively high exposures to cadmium in air
and its inhalation that the cadmium content of blood, urine,
tissues and, of course, the environment have become decisive
measures of cause and effect and, hence, normality or toxicity.
As expected, pathological consequences now recognized widely
correlate closely with cadmium concentrations in tissues. The
-------
Mr. Jeff Civins, Esq. -3- August 19, 1988
condition has been remedied almost entirely by suitable
industrial health measures.
It is of the utmost importance to be reminded here that
these circumstances are virtually identical to those 60 years ago
in regard to zinc smelters. Zinc in the ambient air of smelters
caused a disease known widely as "metal fume fever" or "zinc
shakes". Primarily due to the work of Cecil and Philip Drinker,
"zinc fume fever" was eliminated completely by suitable,
industrial hygienic measures in the workplace. This work also
led to the recognition that ingested zinc is not only not toxic,
but to the contrary, is essential biologically. This insight was
then not appreciated at all.
Katherine Drinker undertook the pertinent work in 1926 which
was designed to understand "metal fume fever" better. She
concluded that zinc is ubiquitous, present in all tissues of both
animals and man not exposed to the hazards of the zinc workplace
and that it has a normal biological function which is unrelated
to the effect of the metal seen in "metal fume fever" i.e., when
zinc is inhaled. She detected so much zinc in unexposed, healthy
individuals that this seemed inconsistent with the then prevalent
view that zinc is highly toxic. In point of fact, ingestion of
large amounts of zinc cause no toxicity at all, and there are no
pathological consequences. History has borne out Dr. Drinker's
analysis of the data and her predictions. (Drinker and Collier,
J. Indust Hyg. 8, 257, 1926).
It is now known that zinc is indispensible to the function
of more than 200 enzymes! Zinc is now prescribed and sold widely
together with metals and vitamins as an essential dietary mineral
supplement.
In the following discussion we need but to replace "zinc" by
"Cadmium"! The analogy is virtually complete, when ingested by
humans, like zinc, cadmium is virtually non toxic. Thus, the
great concern regarding the role of cadmium in the food chain of
man has very little if any factual basis. I am unaware of valid
evidence relating ingestion of even relatively large amounts of
cadmium to abnormally high serum or cadmium contents that signal
cadmium accumulation and any pathological consequences. The
dietary survey at Shipham, Somerset (U.K.) is telling evidence of
this assertion. In this cadmium rich area, the crops grown and
their effect on man were examined. (Sherlock et al.; Barltrop
and Stehlar, 1982, see above). There was not the slightest
evidence of any deleterious effects or toxicity in humans. There
is simply no evidence for any adverse effects of dietary cadmium
on human health.
Two situations are often quoted as exceptions to the above
statements. They require elaboration. Itai-Itai disease on the
-------
Mr. Jeff Civins, Esq. -4- August 19, 1988
one hand and hypertension on the other have been cited widely as
proof or examples of cadmium toxicity due to ingestion of the
metal. The assertions regarding both have been placed in serious
question, but their fate are examples of the old saw that "it
takes one poor paper to get unproven information into a textbook,
but thirty years to get it out". It has yet to be proven that
Itai-Itai is truly a "cadmium toxicity ingestion disease". Its
pathogenesis, in point of fact, is quite uncertain. Itai-Itai
has been diagnosed in a higly select population of Japanese women
subsequent to multiple pregnancies or the menopause. Bone pain
and.fractures were the result of osteomalacia accompanied by
nephropathy and increased urinary amino acids, glucose and
calcium; cadmium was also increased in blood and tissues. All of
these were attributed to the rice diet of high cadmium content
consumed by these women. There never was nor is there now any
evidence that cadmium found in the rice diet was more than
coincidental and caused any of these symptoms. All of the
cause/effect relationships remain .open to questions. The most
important question is, of course, why the disease was only seen
in women with osteomalacia which is generally the consequence of
endocrinological changes that accompany pregnancy or aging.
In a recently published, long-term 6 year study, (Nomiyama
and Nomiyama, Essential and Toxic Trace Elements in Human Health
and Diseae, Alan R. Liss Inc., New York 1988 pp. 589-609) monkeys
were fed rice containing cadmium at the same level as that
purported to have been eaten by Itai-Itai patients. None of the
animals developed any pathology attributable to cadmiumI For all
intents and purposes, this critical experiment should terminate
the debate.
Many years ago Schroeder claimed that cadmium is the cause
of essential hypertension, an assertion which was never confirmed
and which has long since been disproven; it was hardly ever
accepted by anyone other than Schroeder. (Parenthetically, the
history, problems and confusion caused by Schroeder's activities
would require a"'separate report).
In short, individuals said to suffer from Itai-Itai disease
are normotensive. The monkeys in the Nomiyama study also
remained normotensive. Hypertensive individuals do not
accumulate cadmium nor do they suffer from Itai-Itai disease.
There is no evidence that cadmium is related to hypertension or
cardiovascular disease in any manner. While this claim has long
since been negated in the medical literature, it has survived -
albeit without substantiation - in the toxicology literature.
The supposed link between Itai-Itai disease and cadmium is
also reminiscent of a finding regarding mercury some 15 years
ago: swordfish were the culprits. Swordfish were shown to
contain "abnormal" amounts of mercury thought to be due to
-------
Mr. Jeff Civins, Esq. -5- August 19, 1988
pollution. Grave questions regarding this observation led to the
banning of swordfish as a food. After years of investigation and
soul searching the finding proved specious. The high selenium
content of ocean fish neutralizes any potentially toxic actions
of mercury whose presence in ocean fish was shown to predate
historic times, judging by analyses of suitable paleontological
material (Wilmsen, Meyers. Ecol. Food Nutr. I, 1, 1972).
Mercury in swordfish proved not to be the consequence of present
day pollution but of a biological quirk of creationl
Any discussion of the cadmium toxicity problem would be
incomplete without mentioning the existence of metallothionein, a
protein discovered some thirty years ago (Margoshes and Vallee
79, 4813, 1957). It contains both cadmium and zinc in
substantial quantities but its function has remained undefined;
it clearly does have a major biological role. It exists in
virtually all phyla and species and its cadmium content makes it
the first cadmium containing natur.al product to be known. Most
recently phytochelatins of plants have also been described to
accumulate both zinc and cadmium in considerable amounts.
Phytochelatin containing plants readily grow in cadmium rich
soils that were considered "toxic" heretofore. The presence of
such plants in the food chain has not resulted in any symptoms
of cadmium-induced human disease, though the examination of this
putative relationship needs to be extended.
Where does this leave us in regard to cadmium at the plant
site and cadmium deposits in the Cold Spring Cove of Putnam
County New York?
Based on my knowledge and review of the pertinent
literature, I conclude that the presence of cadmium in offsite
soils does not pose a threat to human health through ingestion.
Similarly, though cadmium at relatively high concentrations could
pose a potential threat to human health through inhalation, the
presence of cadmium onsite should not pose a threat through
ingestion. Based on the data derived from the investigation of
Area 2, the possibility of cadmium effects on human health from
cadmium in sediments in the Cove and ore marshes at this
particular site is not only improbable but impossible. The
burden of proof rests on anyone claiming the contrary. Quite the
same, definitive experiments are needed to avoid future mistakes
in handling analogous situations. The adaptation of plants to
high cadmium contents of soil suggests an ecological balance
which deserves to be explored and understood.
Based on all the information available, I must conclude that
the cadmium in the Cold Spring Cove of Putnam County, New York
does not constitute a human health hazard. They do, however,
offer an unrealized opportunity. The Constitution Marsh portion
-------
Mr. Jeff Civins, Esq. -6- August 19, 1988
of this area is presently a wildlife sanctuary. There does not
seem to be any intent or demand for its cultivation. Hence, it
could serve to become an extraordinarily important step forward
to understand the potential of cadmium in biology and toxicology.
If this land would continue to be maintained as a sanctuary, it
could allow the study of plant and animal responses to cadmium.
I would further recommend that Foundry Cove Marsh be preserved as
a sanctuary in order to study cadmium ecology. In that case, no
changes would have to be made other than to study the existence
of the balances that play a role in nature and that have not been
investigated heretofore under such circumstances.
I hope that my comments will assist in resolving the present
conundrum. With best regards.
Sincerely yours
Bert L. Vallee
Paul C. Cabot Professor of
Biochemical Sciences
BLV/kmh
enc.
-------
B«rt L«8t«r Vallee
1938
1943
1946-1949
1948
1948-1954
1954-1955
1955-1960
1954
1959-1980
1960-1964
1961
1962
1963
1964-1965
1965-1980
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1974
1975
1976
1976
1976
1977
1978
1978
Born Jun» If
Z: fc
. „..
mio. in M4101M, Harrard """leal school
.. D.p«rt»nt of Biology.
of Th. Cllnte.l ChMttttr Ubor.tory, P.t.r
"cJHSor'of M.dlcln.. H.r«.ra H.dle.l
C.bot Prof...or of Blologle.1 Ch«.i.try,
, M. .ngl.nl Boxy..
A..ocl.tion of
th.
, C.lifornl. In.tit«t. of
.S. M.tion.l ittw for th.
-
of
-------
1979
1979
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1981
1981-1984
1982
1986
1986
1987
1987
1987
1987
Tracy and Ruth Storar Vlaiting Professor in Life
Sciences, University of California* Davis
visiting Professor, Oberlin College, Oberlin* Ohio
Paul C. Cabot Professor of Biochemical Sciences*
Harvard Medical School
Head/ Center for Biochemical and Biophysical
Sciences and Medicine, Harvard Medical School
Head, Center for Biochemical and Biophysical
Sciences and Medicine* Brigham and Women's Hospital
Biochemist-in-Chief, Center for Biochemical and
Biophysical sciences and Medicine* Division of
Clinical Chemistry, Brigham and Women's Hospital.
Linderstrom-Lang Medal and Award
willard Gibbs Medal and Award of the American
Chemical Society
Chairman, Section of Biochemistry, National Academy
of Sciences
William C. Rose Award in Biochemistry
Overseer, Academia Blnica
Visiting Professor of Medicinal Chemistry,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
Wellcome Visiting Professor of Biological Chemistry*
Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta* GA
Visiting Lectureship* Biochemistry Fundamental to
Medicine* The Weizmann Institute of Science*
Rehovot, Israel
Doctor of Medicine (Honoris Causa) Karolinska
Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Honorary Professorship, Tsinghua University,
Beijing, China
Author of more than 500 publications (formal •JJicUif chapters
of books) on» zinc and other metalloenzymes, their structure,
function, and mechanism of action» diagnosis of diseases*
description of hitherto undescribed diseases) •»*"i°"' hf.ft4-_
absorption, circular dichroism and »*0^c,ci'[c1uJ" Jf^i8"
spectroscopyi inorganic and organic chemical modification of
pr^eins. The biochemical ™d genetic bases of normal and
abnormal alcohol metabolism and addiciton. The biological,
biochemical, and genetic bases of organ formation, i.e.
organogenesis. Editor of scientific journals.
-------
LETTER FROM DR. BERT VALLEE - AUG. 19, 1988
Representatives of ATSDR and NYSDOH met with
Dr. Vallee on September 1, 1988 (see
attendance sheet). The list of references
used by ATSDR was later sent to Vinson and
Elkins.
-------
33OO riRST CITY TOWER
IOOI TANNIN
PUSTON.TEXAS 77OO8-«7eO
TELEPHONE 713 0SI-2222
BLE VINELMN9-TELEX 702140
THE WILLARO ornce BUILDING
MBS PENNSYLVANIA AVE N W.
WASHINGTON, O. C. 1OOO4-IOO7
TCLCPMONC lOt 639-0500 TELCX i9080
VINSON & ELKINS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
FIRST CITY CENTRE
010 CONGRESS AVENUE
AUSTIN,TEXAS 787OI-2496
TELEPHONE 312 «ea-04OO
37OO TRAMMELL CROW CENTER
COOI MOSS AVENUE
DALLAS.TEXAS 7SaOI->0l«
TELEPHONE «!•* MO -T7OO
47 CHARLES ST.. BERKELEY SQUARE
LONDON WIX 7P», ENGLAND
TELEPHONE Ol *•! 40I-7Z30
CABLE VINCUUNS LONDON WI-TCLCX I4MO
August 23, 1988
Ms. Beverly Kolenberg
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
Re: Marathon Battery Company Site
Cold Spring. New York
Dear Ms. Kolenberg:
On July 14, 1988, representatives of Marathon Battery
Company and Gould, Inc. (the "Companies") met with, among
others, representatives of Region II of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), the United States
Army Corp of Engineers, the current site owner, and the
Village of Cold Spring to discuss the comments of the Com-
panies concerning the remedial investigation/feasibility
study (RI/FS) and proposed remedial action plan (PRAP). In
that meeting, questions were raised concerning the RI/FS risk
assessment performed to establish on-site soil remediation
levels for cadmium and concerning recommendations of the
Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry (ATSDR) and of
the State of New York concerning the concentration of cadmium
in off-site soils. In a subsequent telephone conversation,
the Region indicated that a risk assessment would be per-
formed for off-site soils and that the comment period for
Area 2 would be extended to allow comments on that
assessment.
-------
Ms. Beverly Kolenberg
August 23, 1988
Page 2
At the meeting, the Companies indicated that they had
retained medical experts to review pertinent information con-
cerning cadmium. One of these experts, Dr. Bert Vallee of
Harvard Medical School, reviewed relevant documents concern-
ing the site and the pertinent medical literature and pre-
pared a report. Copies of that report and most of the
supporting references are enclosed, as is a copy of his
resume. These comments relate to Area 1 as well as to Area 2
and are relevant to the risk assessment being prepared. The
Companies do intend to review that risk assessment when it
has been completed and to provide comments on it.
By copy of this letter, copies of this report are being
provided to, among others, ATSDR and the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation and Department of
Health, for their consideration.
Sincerely,
Jeff Civins
JC:ab
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Magalie Beausejour, EPA Region II
Mr. William Nelson, ATSDR, New York
Mr. Edward 0. Sullivan, NYSDEC
Mr. Michael O'Toole, Jr., NYSDEC
Mr. Robert Foltin, NYSDEC
Mr. Bill Lowden, NYSDH
Ms. Lisa Ryan, U.S. Department of Justice
Mr. David Hird, U.S. Department of Justice
Mr. Dino Mulardelis, Village of Cold Spring
Mr. James P. Rod, National Audubon Society
Mr. Tom Valentine, CCART
Mr. Michael C. Veysey, Gould Inc.
-------
LETTER FROM VINSON AND ELKINS - AUG. 23, 1988
Copies of the Risk Assessment for the
residential yards as well as the draft ATSDR
Health Consultation were made available for
Vinson and Elkins1 review. Attached is the
final version of the ATSDR memo and a memo
from Peter Grevatt.
-------
33OO FIRST CITY TOWER
IOOI TANNIN
rSTON,TEXAS 77OO2-«7OO
TELEPHONE 713 C3I-2Z22
LE VINELMNS-TELEX
THE WILLAPO OFFICE BUILOINO
I49S PENNSYLVANIA AVE. N.W.
WASHINGTON, O. C. XOOO4-IOO7
TCLCPMONt 101 639-8SOO TILE* 69680
VINSON & ELKINS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
FIRST CITY CENTRE
aie CONGRESS AVENUE
AUSTIN, TEXAS 767OI-2496
TELEPHONE SIZ 405-S4OO
September 9, 1988
37OO TRAMMELL CROW CENTER
ZOOI MOSS AVENUE
DALLAS,TEXAS 7SXOI-2Sie
TELEPHONE *M CIO -T7OO
47 CHARLES ST.. BERKELEY SQUARE
LONDON WSX 7fm. CNOLAND
TELEPHONE Ol «4I 4OI-7I3O
CABLE VINELUNS LOMOON m-TELEX t«Mo
Delivery bv Federal Express
Ms. Beverly Kolenberg
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
Re: Marathon Battery Site — Cold Spring
Putnam County. New York
Dear Ms. Kolenberg:
Thank you for arranging our September 1, 1988 meeting
among representatives of EPA Region II, the Agency for Toxic
Substances Disease Registry ("ATSDR") , the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC"), the
New York State Department of Health ("NYSDOH"), ERT, and
Marathon Battery Company, and Dr. Bert L. Vallee of Harvard,
to discuss health effects associated with cadmium. A list
of those in attendance is attached. We believe this meeting
was a positive step in addressing the health concerns of the
residents of Cold Spring.
At the meeting, Dr. Vallee discussed his conclusions,
based on the results of his extensive knowledge and review of
the pertinent scientific literature, which were presented in
his August 19, 1988 letter. Representatives of the ATSDR
and NYSDOH disputed certain of the conclusions of Dr. Vallee,
but the ensuing dialogue was incomplete. I asked Dr. Vallee
to assist me in summarizing his factual presentation,
identifying the issues of controversy, and suggesting a
mechanism for resolving those issues. He suggested that
representatives of the ATSDR and NYSDOH document the
scientific basis for their position so that differences in
fact, as contrasted with differences in opinion, could be
identified. Set forth below is a summary of Dr. Vallee's
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
September 9, 1988
Page 2
views, the issues of dispute, and specific requests for
documentation, which are directed to ATSDR and NYSDOH by copy
of this letter.
At our meeting, Dr. Vallee briefly indicated his past
experience and background in metallobiochemistry and his
exploration of the biological role of metals, particularly
zinc and cadmium. He emphasized that his comments dealt with
cadmium in relation to human health. He stated his conclu-
sion that the inaestion of cadmium and its subsequent intes-
tinal absorption, two discrete successive physiological
processes, does not constitute a threat to human health, when
this metal is obtained through the food chain. Dr. Vallee
distinguished between the inhalation and ingestion pathways
and noted that zinc, iron and copper when inhaled all result
in "metal fume fever," as does cadmium.
He then noted that the human biology, biochemistry, and
nutrition of cadmium have been studied very sparingly; much
of it is unknown, largely due to the long delay in the
analytical identification of this element and its biological
complexes. Metallothionein, which Dr. Vallee discovered, is
the only known exception in mammals. This protein contains
large amounts of cadmium, is ubiquitous, and is now the
subject of much study in bioengineering.
The toxicological consequences of exposure to cadmium
have been studied intensively. As indicated in his letter,
much of the literature deals with industrial exposure to
cadmium fumes and their subsequent inhalation, followed by
toxicological manifestations and pathology particularly of
the kidney. The effects of cadmium also have been examined
in animals subsequent to other routes of administration and
absorption.
Dr. Vallee has explained that the intestine is clearly
the normal channel for absorption of all nutrients. This
organ has evolved selective, specific and characteristic
features to ensure that essential food constituents of all
kinds, including metals such as Fe, Zn, Cu, and Mg, are
absorbed in quantities sufficient for biological requirements
while protecting the body against toxicity. There usually
are quite distinctive means to assist absorption of "normal"
constituents of the diet.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
September 9, 1988
Page 3
The acquisition of metals through the lung and/or skin
lacks the features inherent to the gastrointestinal canal,
depriving the body of its physiological and biochemical
discrimination and accounting for pathology that may occur on
absorption through other channels such as the lung; this is a
general principle. This principle is readily apparent when
inspecting the absorption of many other metabolites and
chemicals, e.g., estrogens, anesthetics, tobacco, narcotics,
etc., through the lung or skin. While the details of their
disposition subsequent to abnormal routes of intake vary,
this occurs in a manner specific for each substance — a
subject virtually unexplored for cadmium. References to the
general principles concerning distinctions between the
ingestion and inhalation pathways are readily available in
treatises of physiology, nutrition and medicine.
On the basis of these considerations and unknowns,
Dr. Vallee cautioned against simplistic generalizations in
the assessment of ingested cadmium effects, based on the
toxicological experiences and pathology gathered with cadmium
inhalation.
Representatives of ATSDR and NYSDOH asserted that the
toxicity, in particular, renal toxicity, of cadmium does not
differ in humans subsequent to its ingestion on the one hand
and its inhalation on the other. In the interest of
furthering our dialogue, please provide us copies of all the
studies that support this claim.
Representatives of ATSDR and NYSDOH also stated there
was much literature to support the claim that the ingestion
of cadmium does pose a threat to human health. We also
request that we be provided copies of those studies that the
two agencies believe support this claim.
Dr. Vallee noted that Itai-Itai disease was seen and
studied in women past menopausal age who suffered from osteo-
malacia, concomitant renal disease and vitamin D disorders
and who also had a high intake of cadmium due to cadmium
enrichment of their rice diet. However, Itai-Itai disease
was not observed in males as well as women not suffering from
osteomalacia or menopausal syndromes, and that the population
group chosen for study was selected for females of the above
type and therefore biased. The agencies suggested that
nephrotoxicity in these patients is independent 'of osteo-
malacia and is due to cadmium. Please provide copies of any
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
September 9, 1988
Page 4
studies relied upon by the agencies in reaching the conclu-
sion that cadmium causes osteomalacia and, therefore,
Itai-Itai.
With an opporunity to review the requested documents, we
believe real progress can be made in addressing the health
concerns of area residents. Thank you again for arranging
the meeting.
Sincerely,
Jeff Civins
JC:ab
Attachment
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
September 9, 1988
Page 5
cc: Ms. Magalie Beusejour, EPA Region II
Mr. Doug Tomchuk, EPA Region II
Mr. Joel Singerman, EPA Region II
Ms. Nicki DiFonte, EPA Region II
Mr. Peter Grevatt, EPA Region II
Mr. William Nelson, ATSDR
Mr. David Mellard, ATSDR
Mr. Arthur J. Newell, NYSDEC
Mr. Ron Sloan, NYSDEC
Mr. Scott Rodebaugh, NYSDEC
Mr. Robert Foltin, NYSDEC
Mr. Anthony Grey, NYSDOH
Mr. Steve Bates, NYSDOH
Mr. William Lowden, NYSDOH
Mr. Mark Moese, EBASCO
Mr. Neil J. Wilding, EBASCO
Mr. Robert Clemens, ERT, an ENSR Company
Mr. Paul Anderson, ERT, an ENSR Company
Mr. Robert M. Zoch, Jr., ERT, an ENSR Company
Dr. Bert Vallee, Harvard Medical School
Ms. Lisa Ryan, U.S. Department of Justice
Mr. David Hird, U.S. Department of Justice
Mr. Dino Mulardelis, Village of Cold Spring
Mr. James P. Rod, National Audubon Society
Mr. Tom Valentine, CCART
Mr. Michael C. Veysey, Gould Inc.
-------
w
^>^f
2/t-u
-------
LETTER FROM VINSON AND ELKINS - SEPT. 9, 1988
Representatives of ATSDR and NYSDOH have not
provided EPA copies of studies they used to
support the claim that the ingestion of
cadmium poses a threat to human health.
(see Peter Grevatt's memo)
-------
33OO riRST CITY TOWER
IOOI FANNIN
lOUSTON.TEXAS 77OO2-«7eo
TELEPHONE 713 651-2222
CABLE VINELKINS-TELEX 702140
THE WILLARO OFPICE BUILDING
I4S5 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. N.W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 8OOO4-IOO7
TCLCPHONC ZOt 639-8SOO TtLCX 69680
VINSON & ELKINS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TIPST CITY CENTRE
eie CONGRESS AVENUE
AUSTIN.TEXAS 787OI-2496
TELEPHONE 512 4O9-B4OO
September 29, 1988
SEP 30
37OO TRAMMELL CROW CENTER
2OOI MOSS AVENUE
DALLAS.TCXAS 7saoi-aeie
TELEPHONE CM «ZO-77OO
47 CHARLES ST.. BERKELEY SQUARE
LONDON W1X 7PP, CNOLAND
TELEPHONE Ol 441 4«l-7t>e
CABLE V1NEUUNS LONDON WI-TELfX (4MO
Delivery bv Federal Express
Ms. Magalie Beausejour
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
Re: Marathon Battery Site — Cold Spring
Putnam County. New York
Dear Ms. Beausejour:
On September 1, 1988, representatives of Marathon
Battery Company ("Marathon") met with representatives of EPA
Region II, the Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry
("ATSDR"), the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation ("NYSDEC"), and the New York State Department of
Health ("NYSDOH"). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss
health effects associated with cadmium and the relevance of
those effects to the referenced site. Among the experts in
attendance were Dr. Bert L. Vallee of Harvard Medical School
and Dr. Paul Anderson of ERT, who had been retained by
Marathon and Gould, Inc. (the "Companies") to review relevant
documents concerning the site and the pertinent medical lit-
erature. By August 23, 1988 letter, the Companies had sub-
mitted an August 19, 1988 report on this subject, prepared by
Dr. Vallee. This letter provides further relevant
information.
On September 9, 1988, with Dr. Vallee's assistance, the
Companies submitted a request to EPA for documentation from
the agencies specifically concerning the threat to human
health of cadmium ingestion, as distinguished from cadmium
inhalation, and concerning the existence of any causal rela-
tionship between Itai-Itai disease and cadmium ingestion.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
September 29, 1988
Page 2
Previously, the Companies had requested that a risk assess-
ment be performed to address risks associated with the
presence of cadmium in the soil in vegetable gardens adjacent
to the site.
A draft risk assessment, in substantially final form,
was prepared on September 8, 1988 by ATSDR and a copy pro-
vided the Companies on September 14. By September 28, 1988
letter, a copy of a September 19, 1988 memorandum, prepared
by an EPA Region II risk assessor, also was provided. The
Companies gave copies of both these documents to Dr. Vallee
and Dr. Anderson for comment. Because of the understanding
of the Companies that EPA Region II intended to make deci-
sions immediately, based on those documents, this response
was hurriedly prepared, based on comments from Dr. Vallee and
Dr. Anderson, whose review necessarily was abbreviated.
Given the relevance and significance of their comments, the
Companies hope the agency will take them into consideration
prior to rendering a decision.
Comments on ATSDR Draft Report
The ATSDR draft report references epidemiological
studies evaluating health effects associated with the con-
sumption of vegetables grown in gardens containing large
concentrations of cadmium in Shipham, England. The draft
report explains:
Residents have been exposed since at least 1940 to
soil levels ranging from 2-520 ppm with typical
levels being around 90 ppm (Thornton, et. al..
1980). Comprehensive environmental assessments and
health studies have been conducted addressing diet
and garden vegetable consumption. In a dietary
survey of Shipham residents where Cd levels in
garden vegetables and vegetable consumption was
monitored closely, mean dietary Cd intake was
estimated to be 29-35 ug/day (Sherlock, et. al.) .
In a 40 year follow-up mortality study of Shipham
residents, Inskip and Beral (1982) make the follow-
ing statement, "Thus if cadmium contamination has
any effect on the mortality pattern in Shipham it
is slight and does not present a serious health
hazard to the residents".
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
September 29, 1988
Page 3
ATSDR Draft Report, p. 4. This discussion is entirely con-
sistent with the conclusion discussed by Dr. Vallee in his
August 23 report and at the September 1 meeting and summa-
rized in the September 9 letter — that the ingest ion of
cadmium in the food chain does not pose health risks.
The draft ATSDR report states that the presence of ele-
vated levels of cadmium in the renal cortex results in pro-
teinuria and glucosuria. ATSDR Draft Report, pp. 1 & 2.
Consistent with Dr. Vallee's conclusion, the studies refer-
enced by ATSDR in support of this conclusion relate to health
effects associated with inhalation, not ingestion. That
there should be a difference between the two pathways is not
surprising, given that the intestine, the normal channel for
absorption of all nutrients, has evolved selective, specific,
and characteristic features to ensure that essential food
elements of all kinds, including metals, are absorbed in
quantities sufficient for biological requirements while
protecting the body against toxicity. The observed health
effects relate to situations in which cadmium has been
inhaled in relatively high concentrations. See Dr. Vallee's
August 19 Report. The ATSDR report indicated recent air
monitoring at the site could not detect elevated cadmium
levels in the air and presumably the inhalation pathway is
not a significant concern. ATSDR Draft Report, p. 4.
The ATSDR report also discusses the relationship between
cadmium ingestion and Itai-Itai disease and suggests there is
a "causal association." As Dr. Vallee has noted, there is no
evidence to suggest that cadmium ingestion bears any rela-
tionship to the manifestations of this disease. As discussed
in Dr. Vallee's August 19 report, a recently published, six-
year study of monkeys fed rice containing cadmium at the same
level as that purported to have been eaten by Itai-Itai
patients indicated that none of the animals developed any
pathology attributable to cadmium. That study, by Nomiyama
and Nomiyama (1988), discusses other data which suggest "that
daily intake of cadmium was even larger in cadmium-polluted
areas without any renal effects than that in cadmium-polluted
areas with renal effects," supporting the conclusion that
cadmium ingestion does not cause Itai-Itai disease. One of
the Shipham studies referenced by ATSDR, published by Inskip
and Beral in 1982, stated that no case of Itai-Itai disease
was reported in Shipham though soil-cadmium levels were ten
times greater than those in that area of Japan where the
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
September 29, 1988
Page 4
disease was observed. The causal association referred to by
ATSDR is without any factual support in the current litera-
ture. Regardless, the factors cited as contributing to the
susceptibility of that subpopulation for the most part are
not present at the site.
The ATSDR draft report, in discussing • the Shipham
studies, notes that Inskip and Beral "found a weak associa-
tion with cadmium exposure and hypertensive and cerebrovas-
cular disease." ATSDR Draft Report, p. 4. As Dr. Vallee
noted in his August 19 report, this assertion, which is based
on the work of Schroeder, was never confirmed and long since
has been disproved.-I/ Influenced by Schroeder, the finding
of Inskip and Beral is based on a slightly increased inci-
dence of "hypertensive disease" in Shipham compared to
Button. However, when the authors compared the incidence of
"hypertensive disease" between high and low cadmium areas in
Shipham itself, they found a lower incidence of "hypertensive
disease" in the high cadmium areas. This result, according
to the authors, "weaken[s] any argument that the excess of
these conditions is due to the raised cadmium levels in
Shipham." As the ATSDR report notes, the authors conclude
". . .if cadmium contamination had any effect on the mortal-
ity pattern in Shipham it is slight and does not present a
serious health hazard to residents."
In sum, there does not appear to be any relevant,
current research that indicates that cadmium ingestion poses
human health risks. Moreover, even if this fact is ignored,
Dr. Anderson's review indicates there does not appear to be
any factual support for the recommendation that residential
gardens where the soil cadmium levels are around 20 ppm be
remediated.
The ATSDR draft report concludes, on page 4, that "...
it is unlikely that a residential vegetable garden in this
neighborhood can supply the large amounts of vegetables over
an extended period of time to lead to an intake level that
I/ With regard to the Schroeder hypothesis, a standard text
on internal medicine, Harrison's, Principles of Internal
Medicine (llth ed. 1987), does not even mention cadmium
in relation to either a cause of essential hypertension
or that of any degenerative disease process.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
September 29, 1988
Page 5
would cause kidney problems [/]" even assuming, contrary to
the pertinent literature, that cadmium ingestion does pose a
health risk. The ATSDR draft report, on page 7, totally
ignores its own conclusion and the results of the Shipman
studies in suggesting that "a potential health risk could
exist should residents consume large quantities of garden
vegetables and fruits over a long period of time, which are
grown in soil containing elevated levels of Cd."
The ATSDR draft report, in developing a presumably
acceptable level, assumes that 50% of the vegetables consumed
are grown in soil containing 20 ppm cadmium. For a family of
four, this amounts to eating 975 pounds of backyard garden
vegetables per year. Typical vegetable production of a home
garden is significantly less. In a personal communication,
the National Gardening Association in Burlington, Vermont,
indicated that the median garden size is 300 square feet and
that, as a rule of thumb, the median annual production is
.9 pounds per square foot, for a total annual production of
270 pounds of vegetables per garden. Thus, the ATSDR draft
report overestimates exposures by a factor of four and thus
selects a level four times lower than necessary to be protec-
tive of human health, even assuming that cadmium ingestion
does pose a threat and that all the other assumptions are
reasonable. Finally, the 20 ppm number itself is arbitrarily
chosen and without any scientific and site-specific basis.
Comments on EPA Memorandum
The EPA memorandum does not question the reasonableness
of ATSDR's assumptions, nor does it provide independent sup-
port for the 20 ppm level selected. The EPA memorandum
incorrectly concludes that for noncarcinogenic substances,
biological effects occur in a continuum. In point of fact,
for those substances, EPA typically assumes the effects have
a threshold and thus the dose response curve more closely
resembles a step function. See EPA Superfund Public Health
Evaluation Manual.
In the memorandum, the author references the request by
the Companies to the agency that ATSDR and NYSDOH present
studies demonstrating cadmium toxicity following ingestion in
humans. The EPA memorandum states as a well-known fact:
"These studies simply are not available." At the September 1
meeting, representatives of ATSDR and NYSDOH stated that
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
September 29, 1988
Page 6
Dr. Vallee's conclusion, concerning the toxicity of cadmium
through ingestion, flew in the face of the pertinent litera-
ture and asserted that many studies were available that
contradicted Dr. Vallee's conclusion. That assertion was the
basis for the September 9 request by the Companies that those
studies be presented. EPA's statement is precisely the
point: there are no accepted studies that indicate that
cadmium inaestion is toxic to humans.
The EPA memorandum asserts that it has not yet been
decisively demonstrated that cadmium is not toxic at low
levels of ingestion. The ATSDR draft report itself recog-
nizes cadmium contamination in Shipham, which contained
typical soil levels of 90 ppm of cadmium, "does not present a
serious health hazard to the residents." The EPA memorandum
ignores the Shipham studies and the study by Nomiyama and
Nomiyama, which are especially relevant to the Cold Spring
site, in concluding that there is a paucity of scientific
evidence on the safety of cadmium ingestion.
The EPA memorandum concludes by recommending that the
20 ppm cadmium level selected by ATSDR be accepted as the
safe level and rationalizes this recommendation by stating
that "EPA is correct in taking a conservative approach." In
the absence of scientific data indicating cadmium ingestion
poses a health risk, the Companies believe it not conserva-
tive, but irresponsible to suggest to the residents of Cold
Spring that existing levels of cadmium in garden soils
threaten their health, especially where the relevant studies
indicate that no risk to human health exists. Regulatory
decisions should be based on available scientific informa-
tion, not on the absence of data.
The Companies hope that EPA will consider these comments
in the preparation of its record of decision on Area II. The
remediation level suggested in the ATSDR draft report appears.
to be without any justification in the medical literature
and, in any event, to be based on unrealistic and
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
September 29, 1988
Page 7
unsupportable assumptions concerning vegetable production and
consumption.
Sincerely,
VINSON & ELKINS
Jeff Civins
Counsel, for Marathon Battery
Company
JC:ab
cc: Ms. Beverly Kolenberg, EPA Region II
. Mr. Doug Tomchuk, EPA Region II
Mr. Joel Singerman, EPA Region II
Ms. Nickie DiForte, EPA Region II
Mr. Peter Grevatt, EPA Region II
Mr. William Nelson, ATSDR
Mr. David Mellard, ATSDR
Mr. Arthur J. Newell, NYSDEC
Mr. Ron Sloan, NYSDEC
Mr. Scott Rodebaugh, NYSDEC
Mr. Robert Foltin, NYSDEC
Mr. Anthony Grey, NYSDOH
Mr. Steve Bates, NYSDOH
Mr. William Lowden, NYSDOH
Mr. Mark Moese, EBASCO
Mr. Neil J. Wilding, EBASCO
Mr. Robert Clemens, ERT, an ENSR Company
Mr. Paul Anderson, ERT, an ENSR Company
Mr. Robert M. Zoch, Jr., ERT, an ENSR Company
Dr. Bert L. Vallee, Harvard Medical School
Ms. Lisa Ryan, U.S. Department of Justice
Mr. David Hird, U.S. Department of Justice
Mr. Dino Mulardelis, Village of Cold Spring
Mr. James P. Rod, National Audubon Society
Mr. Tom Valentine, CCART
Ms. Heather White, Office of Congressman Hamilton Fish
Mr. Michael C. Veysey, Gould Inc.
-------
LETTER FROM VINSON AND ELKINS - SEPT 29. 1988
Copies of the Risk Assessment for the
residential yards as well as the draft ATSDR
Health Consultation were made available for
Vinson and Elkins1 review. Attached is the
final version of the ATSDR memo and a memo
from Peter Grevatt.
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
GENERAL RESPONSE
TO THE ATTACHED LETTERS
COMMENT
RESPONSE
Detection Limit
The results of the remedial
investigation indicate that no
cadmium is present in the
monitoring wells surrounding the
dredge spoils vault. The 0.7 ug/1
detection limit used by the
laboratory that analyzed the
groundwater samples collected from
the monitoring wells surrounding
the dredge spoils vault is
essentially the same as the 0.5
ug/1 detection limit recommended by
NYSDEC. The MCL for cadmium is 10
mg/1, well above the detection
level employed.
Alternate means
of transporting
contaminated waste
Vault removal
Additional off-site
sampling
Alternatives for waste transport
will be considered during the
design phase of this project.
After consideration of all
available information regarding the
vault, it is the Agency's
conclusion that removal of the
vault is a more appropriate
solution for this portion of the
site in assuring a higher level of
confidence in the long-term
effectiveness and permanence of
the remedy, than the no-action
alternative.
The Environmental Protection Agency
collected soil samples from
residential yards located adjacent
to the former battery facility to
determine whether off-site
migration of heavy metal-
contaminated dust from the
facility had occurred, and if
present, whether it posed an
immediate health threat to area
residents. While we were able to
determine from the data that an
immediate health threat does not
exist, we recognize that additional
soil sampling is necessary to
-------
Failure to inform
residents of sampling
Results
Epidemiology Study
(Cancer Study)
provide a more definitive
characterization of the extent of
heavy metal contamination which has
migrated from the site. To satisfy
these data needs, NYSDEC collected
additional soil samples at various
locations in the vicinity of the
site in early September 1988.
Sampling results will be made
available to the public once the
data has undergone validation. In
addition, as part of the remedial
design, comprehensive sampling of
the adjacent residential yards will
be undertaken.
In the past, EPA collected soil
samples from the residential
yards adjacent to the former
battery facility to determine
whether off-site
migration of heavy metal
contamination from the site had
occurred, and whether it posed an
immediate health threat to the
residents. These data, which
indicate no immediate health
threat, were discussed at a June
13, 1988 public meeting.
Following the public meeting, the
data and an explanation of it were
forwarded to the residents whose
yards were sampled.
The New York State Department of
Health Bureau of Cancer
Epidemiology completed a cancer
study for the town of Philipstown
(Putnam County) in 1986. In
summary, the incidence of cancer
is what would be expected in a
similar community in New York
State. (See attached report for
further details.)
-------
22 Constitution Drive
Cold 3pring, ". Y. 10516
June 16, 1988
Magalie Beausejour, Project Manager
US Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency & Remedial Response Division
26 Federal Plaza
Room 23-102
New York, New York 10273
Dear Ms. Beausejour,
I attended your recent meeting of June 13, 1988 as I have in the past
and I am extremely dissatisfied with the EPA's decision to leave the
existing vault on site or the construction of any other vault.
When the existing vault was put in my "back yard" where was the con-
cern for human health as all of the neighborhood children were
witnesses. We had our garden near this vault for years. Did anyone
bother to tell us about the contaminated soil or the levels that were
acceptable? Did anyone bother to inform the owners of one "back yard"
on Constitution Drive that their soil was above acceptable levels of
cadmium."
We were informed that the vault area would be maintained and kept
cleaned. To my knowledge the area was mowed only once in the past
ten years. The area is overgrown with trees, weeds, etc. Are we to
believe that tree roots will never damage the vault and cause leakage
of these contaminants?
The cancer rate is extremely high in this small community. Many former
employees of this battery factory have been victims, We have all heard
about the fish, wild life and plants. Have any human studies been
completed? Vhat about the people? What about the children from
Constitution Drive and the surrounding area? Do the members of this
community know that these contaminants will cause lung, liver, and
kidney damage?
The only acceptable solution to me is to clean it up before it's too
late. I'm not concerned how or where you put the garbage. Maybe you
would like it in your back yard.
Tired of waiting for answers,
- Cheryl Allen
cc: Putnam County News & Recorder
-------
16 Paulding Ave.
Cold Spring, New York
10516
June 17, 1988
Magalie Beausejour
Remedial Project Manager
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza Room 23-102
New York, New York 10278
Dear Magalie.
I am writing concerning the Cold Spring Cadmium
Pollution Clean-up Plans that were released at the meeting on
Monday, June 13, 1988. As a resident of Cold Spring, I have
serious concerns about the No Action plan for the Dredge
Spoils Vault. It was not conclusively proved that the vault
was not leaking from your test. Your detection levels show
no leakage but, as pointed out at the meeting, these levels
are not as low as the ones used by the State DEC. Also at
the meeting, an individual from the Audobon Society stated
that tests on living organisms were the best indicators of
cadmium pollution. Mr. Singerman stated he felt confident
that the vault was not leaking and that there was no need to
fix something that wasn't broken. I strongly urge your
agency to review this option and remove the vault's contents
from the plant area.
Secondly, I have serious concerns about the manner of
transporting the wastes from the plant. . As a resident of
Cold Spring, I can verify that traffic on Main Street is at
times now congested. Transporting of the wastes by truck
-------
could only further congest an area that is already strained.
I would therefore hope that your agency would review other
means of transporting the waste material.
I sincerely hope that your agency will consider the
options chosen and find resolutions that the residents of
Cold Spring can live with safely.
Sincerely,
-------
VILLAGE OF COLD
PUTNAM COUNTY, NEW YORK 10516 G INCORPORATED APRIL 22, 1846
June 22, 1988
United States Environmental Protection Agency
REgion II, 26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
Attn: Magalie Beausejour,Project Manager
Western New York Remedial Action Section
Dear Ms. Beausejour:
The consensus of the Public Hearing held on June 13, 1988 at the Cold Spring
Firehouse was to remove the vault off the premises at the Marathon Battery Site.
Also, prior to removing any hazardous waste off the site area you should
notify the Mayor and Board of Trustees prior to doing so.
RMC/fa
cc: Board of Trustees
Putnam County News
Village Attorney Mularadelis
Sincerely yours,
Board of Trustees
Village of Cold Spring
Roger M. Chirico. Mayor
Trustees: William Mazzuca. Thomas D. Monroe. Jr.. Anthony Patinella. Albert Santivenere
Mrs. Jerome Allen. Clerk. Constantine Mularadelis. Attorney
-------
•- ^..-_ __^ , I ;.'OO
/aga_i.j _.eausejour, ."roject Manager
'J.C. _nviro.-.:r.er:tai .-.gency
..^ergsricy :,• .^einediai .;.esponse -ivis
2c .eaerai .-iaza - .^oo:;; 2j?-1-^£
.•ev; i"or.<, ..ew YorK U276
.-is. .leausejour;
The accounts of tne meeting of June 1J>, 1963 nere in Coid Spring are
very disturoing. _t is to ue hoped tnat tne proposal to j.eave tne
i.Lt containing tne contaminants and trust to iuc;t tnat it Doesn't
^ in tne future is incredibly dangerous. It snouid ~e removed l^i-
.::eciiateiy for tne protection of those of us v;no live in tniu r.eign-
cofhood and in the nahe of common sense.
As i^r the proposal to true.-: cut tne contaminated .uatc-nai Jtii_ to
ce removed from tnc mattery plant and its' surroundings - this is
tru-.y uncei_ = Vr3ci~! Anyone v/no /.as driven in tne vi^-ago ..ncv/c t.iat
•tnerc- is no v;ay cne streets i.: ^uestion coulu v.-ossi--.'/ .-.it..sta:.d c.»c
_::f_ux of .".eavy trucks at LJ ::.inute ir.tervais for tne _^ngtny :i:.aa
of ti...e necessary to complete tae v.oriC of re:r.ova±.
..it:- tne oovious alternatives readily at nand, naineiy - tne railroad
and tne river - I sincerely nope tnat tne frivoious idea of using"
trucr.s for tnis nauiage is discarded once and for ail ti_:e.
Considering tne _engtr. of tir.e and er.onr.ous expenaitur-e of :..oney
already-devoted to studying tnis r.rocie:.-, and tne moneys supposedly
co..:;:.itted to actual-./ G'e^---'c ^"e v;or;-: done, tnose of us .::ost air-
ect_y invoj-vea snou-d expect co see constructive, sensicic and i.::-
:.iediate action to rid our cc:::.r.unity of this dangerous situation.
;usan .!. wrof^
1 1 .\ain street
Joid Bering, '..
cc: .-utna^: County ;.e\vs •-• recorder
-------
3A Constitution Drive
Cold Spring, New York 10516
June 2k, 1988
Magalie Beausejour
Project Manager, US EPA
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
26 Federal plaza Rm 23-102
New York New York
Dear Ms. Beausejour,
I have lived at Hf Constitution Drive for 2U years and just recently
become informed of the effects of cadmium exposure. My neighbors who also
happens to be cousins of mine, have unacceptable levels of 6?PFM cadmium found
in the soil samples taken there. I have taken alarm to this because I have
seen in the past and also right now health problems develop. Things such as
cancer, ahigh rate of misscarriges, and also still born births within my
family. This has caused extreme suffering and I would like to see remedial
measures followed through by action. I demand removal of the vault on the
Marathon Company Site.
Dredging and placement of these contaminants in this vault was done
without attiquate notification of the risks to nearby residents who are now feeling.
the ill effects on our health. We have been victims of someone elses catostrophic
mistake and more mistakes may continue to happen.
We want the toxic vault removed.
Sincerely,
Susan Giachinta
-------
P.O. Box 249 - Deer Hollow Rd.
Cold Spring, N.Y. 10516
Magalie Beausejour
Project Manager, U.S. EPA
26 Federal Plaza, Rm 23-102
New York N.Y.
Dear Ms. Beausejour,
It has become hard for me to believe that the EPA is working for the
benefit of the American people to insure our safety when no notification was
given to the individuals at risk when unacceptable levels of cadmium contam-
inants are and have been present in soil samples taken in 1986 near family homes.
I lived and grew up all my life at 12 Constitution Drive. I was shocked to
read that there is 67 PPm in the backyard where I have spent my childhood. I see
this as an extreme lack of responsibility and failure to communicate the dangers
that may be involved here.
I and my family demand action to be taken to ensure the safety of our-future
here. Our main objective is to have the vault removed. Too much valuable information
has been kept from us in the past and there is no telling that the future will abide
with your special promise to monitor it for 30 years. You may never tell us when
it starts to crack and le ak into the enviornment. The government has already
polluted the Hudson Valley enough when the Sonotone Corp. failed to meet regulation
during its plant operations, back in the late 60's and early 70's. Too many
people have been exposed to these toxins and we demand more immediate remedial action.
Sincerly,
VA^
-------
P.O. Box 243 - Fishkill Rd.
Cold Spring, N.Y. 10516
y -i
Magalie Beausejour
Project Manager
U.S. E.P.A. Emergency and Remedial Response Div.
26 Federal Plaza Rm. 23-102
New York N.Y.
Dear Ms. Beausejour,
I have spent my childhood years at 12 Constitution Drive, during which time
the Sonotone Plant was posing a threat to the enviornment and public health
safety to nearby residents. Information has not been readily available in the
past and the people with the highest risks at stake have not been involved be-.
cause of lack of knowledge. In so many places in your newsletter, you mention
that you have not received public comments on actions and remedial measures that
have recently been placed before us. This information has been kept from us until
the latest possible moment. 67 PPm found in soil samples taken in 1986.
June 15th 1988 the EPA finally comes to Cold Spring to alert us of the
dangers at risk. The fire hazards had been unfolded to us only a few months ago.
Your informative updates have been critically behind. Maintenence of the vault
area is thouroughly disgusting. There has been none at all. The overgrown fence
has fallen over in places and trees have taken route on top of the vault area.
! do not believe that a site that looks like this can be in tact.
We demand that the vault be removed to ensure the safety of all.
Sincerly,
-------
20 Constitution Drive
Cold Spring, N. Y. 10516
June 26, 1988
Magalie Beausejour, Project Manager
US environmental Protection Agency
Emergency & Remedial Response Division
26 Federal Plaza
Room 23-102
New York, New York 10278
Dear Ms. Beausejour,
Since the Superfund investigation began at the Marathon Battery site
in 1983, the residents of Constitution Drive have been kept in the
dark. ;Ve have continually asked the DEC and LPA why no human stu.iid.es
were being condu-cted and their answer always seemed to be there was
no risk to humans at this time. Now, after having to ask for the
results of the ground soil samples taken in 1986, we find several-yards
have -a higher cadmium reading than that which is acceptable, v/hy were
we not notified? ,Vhy do they still feel there is no risk to human life?
We have planted gardens and ingested the f oo4,,fr,ont *hese gardens. If
there is the slightest possible chance of danger to human life- and
public health safety, shouldn't we have been notified not to ingest
these foods in 1986 when the results were learned?
Now that our yards may be contaminated we are going to have to also
contend with the problems of the cleanup - twenty trucks a day up and
down our small streets causing total disruption to the village and our
neighborhood.
v/e live en Constitution Drive because it is a lovely family neighbor-
hood. The federal government has come in and totally disrupted our
lives and I feel it about time we were being kept informed on a personal
level rather than at a town meeting where you are totally ignored until
the end of the meeting.
Hopefully, Big Brother will begin watching where he should and take
care of Constitution Drive and its residents in the correct manner.
•Also tired of waiting for answers,
Margaret Ligay
cc: Putnam County News & Recorder
-------
-------
COLD SPRING AREA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INC
BOX 71, COLD SPRING. NEW YORK 10516
TELEPHONE: (914)265-9060
RESPONSE TO THE JUNE 13, 1988, PUBLIC BEARING
MARATHON BATTERY COMPANY SITE
CONCERNING THE
GROUND WATER TESTING
None of the alternatives are acceptable until the disputes
over ground water contamination measurements are resolved.
Apparently, the EPA staff preference for GWl is based on finding
little or no heavy metal contamination using the LEAST stringent
testing method discussed at the meeting.
SUGGESTION :
BEFORE a remedial alternative is selected, retest the site
using the biological testing method suggested by James Rod of the
Audubon Society which identified the presence of contaminants in
Foundry Cove that other tests missed.
TRANSPORTATION METHOD, AREAS 1 & 2: COMMENT 1
In both cases it has been assumed that trucks would haul the
waste off -site. This indeed would be a hazard, as you noted.
Kemble Avenue is a very narrow, two-way street, the only feasible
exit being heavily-traveled Main Street. Ten-wheeler trucks using
these .streets at 15/20 minute intervals would be dangerous,
impractical and needlessly disruptive to the Village.
SUGGESTION:
Ship the material out at night on the train.
TRANSPORTATION METHOD, AREAS 1(2: COMMENT 2
FACT: No off-site disposal area was been selected. EPA
staff stated that, if none were found, Buffalo would be used.
Have you calculated how many trucks/driver shifts would be needed
to truck all that stuff to Buffalo? How much more would those
trips (or ones to the Ohio site mentioned} cost? How much longer
would the clean-up take for any disposal site of similar
distance?
SUGGESTION:
Don't use trucks. Use the train — or even barges.
GROUND WATER AND STORAGE VAULT
The No Action alternative favored by EPA assumes no future heavy
metal leakage from the vault, no future development of the
aquifer for potable or municipal uses, and sufficient flushing of
organics from the aquifer to protect East Foundry Cove. It also
assumes that alternative S4 "will remove the primary source of
contamination. "
It is true that, if no methods were available to guarantee
against future contamination, those risks would be inevitable.
But the technology is available. Therefore future risk is
unacceptable.
SUGGESTION:
A stitch in time saves nine. Decontaminate the vault and clean
the water .
Cold Spring Area Chamber of Commerce
Krebs, President
-------
THE PUTNAM COUNTY LEGISLATURE
Two County Center
Carmel, New York 10512
914-225-3641
Joseph C. Hickey CHAOMAN
Anthony J. CoCOZZa OCPUTT CHAIRMAN
Anthony J. Cocozza COCMOMATO*
SOLB WASTt PLANMNG
Elaine D. Ansbro CLOK
Clement Van Ross COUNSO.
July 2nd, 1988
Barbara A. Murphy oar. \
Jim Cordon BST. i
Louis 0. Tartaro on. a
Michael K. Semo Jr. oar. 4
Lynn E. Greenwood
-------
2) Acknowledging that someday the integrity of the vault will
be lost...hoy much more costly will it be to remove the cadmium
in ten years? Twenty years? Thirty years? And can you
guarantee the funds will be available?
3) You currently plan to excavate soils from around the
Marathon building and to dispose of them off-site. Would it
not be more cost-effective to do the entire job of off-site
removal now? Over the long haul, Superfund dollars will be
saved by removing the cadmium spoils in the vault at the same
time as these other soils. Why incur the expense of permits
and endure costly negotiations for transportation twice?
4) Finally, why has EPA failed to properly inform area
residents and emergency services of health hazards in and
around the Marathon plant? What immediate action do you intend
to take to correct this?
The April (?) EBASCO report contains a letter irom William
Nelson of the Department of Health and Human Services, Agency
for Toxic Substances, referring to soil samplings from
residents' properties performed in 1986. He calls for
"composite samples of backyards to characterize the extent of
contamination." Notation in the EBASCO book also states
residents on Constitution Drive should not eat vegetables grown
in their backyards. (I cannot give specific page reference as
this report was no longer available in any of the three
repositories as of June 28, 1988.) Why have no health
advisories been issued? And, when does EPA or the NYS
Department of Health plan to do a study of the long-term health
impacts of cadmium in Cold Spring?
Please be assured that this community is not composed of a
bunch of Nervous Nellies. Ule have waited patiently — perhaps
too patiently — for DEC and then EPA to finish studying the
Marathon site. Now that the tests are done, we know that one
of our only two reliable sources of water will never again be
available for safe municipal use; that the cadmium was flushed
-------
not only into the Cove but the Hudson River (which squelched
our 1983 permit for a pipe and hydrant into the River for
additional fire flows); and that a piece of real estate that
once uas the economic heart of the community will probably be
off the tax rolls for many years to come.
Uhat we are is frustrated and anxious... frustrated by delays
and lack of action... and anxious in uhat we perceive as
cavelier PR tactics without true regard for the community.
Please renew our trust and belief in the Federal government's
concern for Cold Spring. Safely remove the vault's cadmiura
spoils to a proper toxic waste disposal site.
Sincerely ,
Barbara A. Murphy
Legislator, Dist. 1
Health, Education and Social Services Committee, Chair
cc. Hon. Alfonse W. D'Araato, U.S. Senator
Bon. Daniel Patrick floynihan, U.S. Senator
Hon. Hamilton Fish, Jr. (21st Cong. Dist.)
Hon. Mary B. Goodhue (37th Senate Dist.)
Hon. George E. Pataki <91st Assem. Dist.)
Putnam Countv News
-------
Concerned Citizens About Removing Toxins
20 Constitution Drive
Cold Spring, HY 10516
July 5, 1988
Magalie Beausejour, Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
26 Federal Plaza. Room 23-102
New York, New York 10278
Dear Ms. Beausejour:
Ve are writing to you to comment concerning the EPA proposed
remedial action plan for the Marathon Battery site.
Ve do not agree with any of the EPA's choices regarding the
dredge vault as remedy to the site.
We-disagree with alternative V-l, no action, for a number of
reasons. It appears the decision is based solely on price and
not on the effects of the vault becoming compromised. In the 15
years since the vault was constructed, there has been absolutely
no maintenance save for one grass cutting. There is no reason
to believe that this will change. Asphalt and clay are not
impervious to root and vegetation damage. Damage may already be
done to the vault since it has been 21 months since its last
inspection. Posting of signs and installing fences are not a
guarantee of safety. The signs which were erected in the cove
and marsh area are illegible after less than 24 months and
fences are no longer a deterrent to vandalism.
The danger to health for the Cold Spring area and
surrounding communities such as Beacon, Garrison, and the entire
Phiiipstown area as a whole will not be lessened by no action.
Ve. the citizens on the attached petitions, demand that the
EPA adopt option V-6 as the preferred option for the dredge
spoils vault.
NO LONGER WILLING TO WAIT FOR ANSWERS,
C.C.A.R.T.
cc:Alphonse D'Amato
Daniel P. Moynihan
Hamilton Fish
Mary C. Goodhue
George Pataki
Peter C. Alexanderson
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
SEP 27 1988
Comparison of the Dredge Spoils Vault at the Marathon Battery
5JECT: Company Superfund Site to Current RCRA Standards
FROM- Douglas TomchukCr. Aand Alan Straus
Site Compliance Branch Hazardous Waste Facilities Branch
TO: Magalie Beausejour, Project Manager
New York/Caribbean Remedial Action Branch
Purpose
The purpose of this memo is to compare the design and construc-
tion of the dredge spoils vault at the Marathon Battery Company
site to current standards under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
Background
'In 1973, the Marathon Battery Company and Gould, Incorporated
dredged cadmium-contaminated sediments from Foundry Cove Marsh
pursuant to a judicial order. These sediments which contained
an average concentration of 1500 ppm of cadmium were dewatered,
mixed with 0.5% powdered limestone, and placed in a below-ground
vault in 1974.
Dredge Spoils Vau-lt Construction
The vault (according to design documents for lack of "as built"
drawings) was about 10 feet in depth. (See Attachments 1 and 2)
A two inch asphalt layer was applied on top of the native soils
to the side slopes and the bottom of the pit. The bottom of the
pit was between 10 and 15 feet above the water table. On top
of the asphalt, Putnam clay, with an affinity to adsorb cadmium,
was installed in a one foot layer. The sediments (which were
dewatered and then mixed with limestone to decrease the solubi-
lity of the cadmium contained in them) were then placed on top
of the clay. Pipes (the design documents conflict here; about
2-inch diameter pipes are mentioned in the text, and 4-inch
diameter pipes are shown in the drawing) were placed on top of
the sediments in gravel channels to vent any gases produced by
anaerobic decay of organic materials in the sediments. On top
of this, 6 inches of Putnam clay was placed, and then a 2.5-inch
layer of asphalt. Finally, the area was graded so that the
vault was 3-4 feet below the soil surface, and in turn below
the frost line.
REGION II FORM 132O-1 (9/85)
-------
-2-
The Final Recommendations memorandum (Attachment 1) by Dr.
Harry Gregor states, "...the Cd in these spoils has a very low
solubility, such that even prolonged shaking with river or well
water released but 0.03 to 0.08 ppm of cadmium into the water."
He stated in a later memorandum, dated May 16, 1974, that
"...the asphalt lining was really not essential, but was an
additional safety guard."
Current RCRA Construction Standards
At the time the vault was designed there were no standards for
containment of hazardous wastes. To compare the vault construc-
tion to current standards, EPA looked at the requirements for a
new RCRA Subtitle C facility. As explained below, current
standards are more stringent than the vault containment, although
it is recognized that no design model existed in 1973. It is
extremely important to state from the outset, that at a RCRA
facility, the most desirable and environmentally sound closure
of a hazardous waste management unit is clean closure. EPA
prefers to remove the source of contamination for treatment
rather than leave it in place. If clean closure is implemented
at a site, then limited post-closure monitoring is necessary to
assure that cleanup objectives have been met.
Currently, a RCRA Subtitle C facility requires a double-lined
system with a leachate collection/leak detection system. A
brief description of a typical facility follows. (See Attach-
ments 3 and 4.)
In general, RCRA requires the installation of a soil liner
above the native soil foundation, several feet above the sea-
sonal high water table. This liner is a well-compacted soil.
with a hydraulic conductivity less than 1 x 10-7 cm/sec. It
should be at least 3-feet thick, and installed in 6-inch lifts.
Directly above the soil liner is a flexible membrane liner
(FML) which should be at least.. 30 mils in thickness. The FML
and the 3-foot compacted soil liner combined are considered a
"composite" liner. Above the FML of this secondary liner, is
the secondary leachate collection and removal system (LCRS).
Any leachate that infiltrates the primary liner above this
section should be de minimus in volume. Above the primary
liner is the primary LCRS, a porous layer capable of maintaining
a leachate head of less than 1-foot. The fill material is then
placed in the cell.
-------
-3-
Upon filling a cell, a gas venting system, if deemed necessary,
is installed above the operational cover material. Next, a
layer of compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity no greater
than 1 x 10-7 cm/sec is installed in a layer that is a minimum
of two feet thick. A flexible membrane cover (FMC) with a
minimum thickness of 20 mils is placed directly on top of this.
Continuing upward, a surface water drainage layer is located
above the FMC. A filter layer separates this porous layer
from the cover soil above it. The cover soil should be at
least 2-feet thick, support vegetation that will effectively
minimize erosion, have a final top slope that will effectively
promote drainage, and be of sufficient depth to ensure that
the FMC is below the frost line.
Vault Comparison
The vault installed at the Marathon Battery Company site,
although innovative for its time, is not equivalent to the
current requirements of a RCRA Subtitle C facility.
First of all, the vault is not double-lined. The Putnam clay/
asphalt layer is considered a single composite liner, therefore,
it does not satisfy the requirement for a double liner. Also,
the hydraulic conductivity of the Putnam clay is unknown, as
is its method of installation. It is only one foot thick
instead of the 3-feet as in a RCRA liner.
The monitoring wells surrounding the vault could be used to
detect leaks from the vault. However, in addition to the
RCRA requirements for groundwater monitoring, RCRA guidance
requires that a leak detection/leachate collection system be
located between the primary and secondary liners so as to
detect any releases from the cell prior to discharge into
groundwater. Monitoring wells may identify such a release,
but only after the groundwater is contaminated.
The cap of the vault does not contain a sufficient layer of
clay to meet the RCRA guidance, and its hydraulic conductivity
is again unknown. There is no layer of permeable material
to facilitate surface water removal once it reaches the asphalt
layer, although the asphalt was pitched for drainage.
Asphalt Integrity
The integrity of the asphalt liner and cap have been questioned.
Although there is no evidence that shows that cadmium is leach-
ing from the vault, the actual integrity of the vault has not
been confirmed. If the asphalt liner were cracked then there
is a potential for flow into the underlying soils and aquifer.
-------
-4-
The asphalt cap may have developed cracks due to settling of
the dredge spoils. This may allow for channelized flow into
the vault. In addition, the vegetative cover is overgrown
(i.e., trees 15-25 feet tall). It is possible that the roots
of these trees have permeated the asphalt, destroying the
integrity of the cap.
Conclusions
The dredge spoils vault at the Marathon Battery Company site
does not meet the requirements for a RCRA Subtitle C hazardous
waste landfill. The proposed monitoring system to detect
possible leachate discharge from the the vault will only do
so after contamination has reached the groundwater. In addi-
tion, the most environmentally sound closure decision at a RCRA
facility is removal of the hazardous waste from the site to
health based levels, i.e., clean closure.
cc: Beverly Kolenburg - ORC
Nickie DiForte - SCB
Joel Singerman - NYCRAB
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
Columbia University in tlic City of New York | NcwYork.N.Y. 10027
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING & APPi-IES SCIENCE
Committe* on Cnviionm«r.t»l Eneintvrinc Terrace
MEMORANDUM
TO: T. GORMAN REILLY, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
ASSISTANT CHIEF, CIVIL DIVISION
FROM: HARRY P. GREGOR
SUBJECT: DISPOSAL OF SPOILS DRZDSED FROM FOUNDRY COVE
FINAL RECOl'S'lENDATIONS
1. As the result of my earlier memorandum and telephone
discussions, I believe that all of those listed below are
in agreement as to the methodology for disposing of the
dredged spoils from Foundry Cove, and on that basis I
formally propose the methodology of this memorandum.
2. Those who have been consulted include:
Jack Harrison, N.Y. State Dept. Env. Conservation,
White Plains, N.Y.
Cesare Manifredi, N'.Y.S.D.E.S., White Plains, K.Y.
Allen E. Raymond, Bur. Facility Design and Operation,
N.Y.S.D.E.S., Albany, N.Y.
Nolan A. Curry, N.Y.S.D.E.S., Industrial Facility,
Albany, N.Y.
John A. Ruf, EPA, Region II
John Frisco, EPA, Region II
3.. These spoils are extensive, constituting approximately
3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards with an estimated average Cd
content of 1500 ppir (and an approximately equivalent
amount of nickel) and thus contain about 5 tons of
£08^85
-------
cadmium metal. However, the Cd in these spoils has
a very low solubility, sucli that even prolonged shaking
with river or well water released but 0.03 to 0.08 ppm
of cadmium into the water.
4. Reports of the geological survey of the area chow
that it is extremely stable, essentially a glacial till
region of such stability that to quote the test laboratory,
"buildings as large as the Empire State.Building could be
built there." The area is free of ground water as
•
borings down to 30 feet demonstrated.
5. Both Marathon Manufacturing and Could Inc. have ex-
pressed to me their agreement with this proposal as regards
making available land adjacent to the dike available. We
have discussed the exact methodology of this memorandum
and they will signify their agreement to you in writing
upon receipt of a copy of this document.
•
6. I have distributed a set of plans by Gillmore and
Olson. These called for the excavation and compacting of
the area adjacent to the dike to form a pit about 10 ft.
deep with a flat bottom and sloping sides as shown in
Fig. 1. The pit would'be lined with 2 inches of asphalt
paving for sealing and water-proofing. After being
E080S6
-------
r-
c
•o
^
I
!
rn !
i
I
I
- i
\
E080S7
-------
filled in a manner to be specified, the top of the
pit vould be sealed with 2.5 inches of asphalt paving
on a 6 inch base, etc.
7. That in order to provide for the binding of any
traces of Cd leached from the spoils, a layer of
Putnam clay which has a high affinity for Cd (Putnam
clay is locally available) to a depth of one foot be
laid on the bottom and sides of the pit.over the asphalt
layer. The sides will be arranged or the method of
•
placement will be such that the sides are properly
coated.
B. The spoils are now partially dry, about 25% water.
•
•
vrhen air-dried they have a strong, adobe-brick quality
and contain about 10 - 15% water. All of the, spoils will
be dried insofar as is possible prior to being placed
in the pit, and the transfer and filling will be done
•
so as to keep the spoils dry. The spoils will be
transferred to the pit by a dry transfer method, as
opposed to a hydraulic transfer.
9. After the. spoils have been transferred and appro-
priately compacted, approximately 2 inch porous tile
pipe would be placed on top of the spoils with these pipes
E080S8
-------
-4-
appropriately laid in and covered by crushed gravel to
allow gases to be vented. These tile pipes would be
connected to a vent above ground so that any gases
formed in the deposit would be vented and not generate
pressure which could cause deformation of the deposit.
10. Then 6 inches of Putnam clay would be laid over
the top of the spoils and vent system and be suitably
compacted.
11. Then the 2.5 inch asphalt paving would be placed
over the pit on a suitable base. This asphalt'cover
would be sloped to allow for surface drainage and be
about 3-4 feet belov; ground level, below the frost line
•
to prevent frost attack. •
*
12. The total volatile solids content of representative
samples of the spoils were determined to ascertain the
amount of organic material present, along with a deter-
mination of the water content of the spoils. These were
o
carried out by drying at 100 C for 24 - 30 hours to
obtain water content. TVS was then determined by heating
at 600°C for 30 minutes. Composite samples taken from
the dike showed a TVS 'of 11 - 12%, based upon the dry
weight. These also showed about 50% water, based on the
E080S9
-------
original wet weight. Some individual spoils samples
were also analyzed. Those taken from the channel banks
among the vegetation had as much as 57% TVS; those from
the body of the cove were about 10% TVS, as expected.
13. In order to keep the spoils alkaline and avoid an
acid environment which could result in metal release,
0.5% (by volume) of powdered limestone will be added to
• the'spoils, appropriately and uniformly mixed with the
•
spoils.
14. I cannot at this time specify the exact source of
the Putnam clay to be used. Preliminary tests have
shown that the green variety has a higher base exchange
capacity -than the yellow. A (source of high grade clay
will be located and used for this purpose.
15. Some preliminary compaction studies would also be
made to determine the load bearing characteristics of
the spoils. When air-dried they are very hard and rigid,
about the consistency of adobe mud bricks. Present
plans are to level the area to grade, plant grass seed
and enclose it with a fence.~
16. If further soil stability tests are favorable, a
•
parking lot could be constructed at grade level'above
the deposit, with an appropriate slope so as to drain
E080DO
-------
-6-
off rain water readily. Or, if the load bearing character-
istics of the spoils material are found'to be adequate,
the company may wish to place a slab above the deposit
pit and put up an appropriate building. The absolute
requirement will be that the spoils remain undisturbed
permanently, and that the area be enclosed by a fence
which would also enclose the vent to protect it against
damage.
•
17. As to how to insure that the deposit will not be
's »
* *
disturbed for the indefinite future, and since the
•
nature of restrictive covenants on this land are legal
matters, I make no specific recommendation other than
•
that it be assured that the spoils remain permanently
sealed.
18. Steps will be taken to obtain permits for this con-
struction from the Village of Cold Spring, with subsequent
approval from the Township of Philipsburg if necessary.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conser-
vation does not have a permit system as such that would
apply; rather, they would issue tin approval of this area
as being designated as a new disposal site. No permit
or forn.al approval by EPA as such is required. *-
E08031
-------
19. I ash, accordingly, that if this plan meets with
X
your approval, that your office take appropriate actions
to inform Marathon and Gould that the provisions of the
court order have been met and that work can proceed.
A contractor has informed me that the entire project
could be completed within a month given the availability
of all necessary permits and good weather. As soon as
the spoils have been disposed of, the dike will be
taken down and the area returned to substantially its
original state. Z will also .ask that the debris from
the area be removed so the natural beauty of the
Cove is enhanced.
cc: J. Harrison
C. Manifredi
A. £. Raymond
K. A. Curry
J. A. Ruf
J. Frisco
J. Jackson. Gould
D. Mogn. Harathdrf
Barry P. Gregor
-------
.•".--;•»«;..»••*•_•{ _*''L-V'4! :l'i
•' . viji .-* '• <•*. .4'./*"> (.. ;.;,.... " v . i ! '
fN»-»-;'-A OT^/ •: " '.' ' -:: *••/••. J-" I.
Fi^rr-5.-:*-"-
r - — , ^ .. jy
i j" -.
' '•' 41 ''/' ' - "* ••'."••";•' . _.„., . '•£-:•'":2r-Zi-'j.'./\ -I-' ."•• C\''''it''*: "" '•• ':'':-*
:-;' • - }-!/>• .(.;r.^:r:: —-^/-^^^ r-;|\^-^^
^^?^?^^gS^i!^^ • -;'." v; - -i #* • :f^^&^|^-f ::^:¥-5:®¥l;J|. 5:-TO^f'-
•'^••••^'•'.••'^••.VJ'^V.v1*.1 . ' • " X !><; •^•: — W.*- ,^|t'Vss^..v ,.—•'-v.:' . !. -• • .,-;'•••••".<• "j. -»-•' / " \ ^ '-' '.
^•^^•>^-''*^ -V'" '/- "^-vv^-V--•' • / \ ... , • .1 .
/?P^:f '^-:^:^%tTH'-£"v "Ss, ;V^r": fe-^SSJJ3--''' ••'_-,.:-.- ••- ^\ ' •
'""" "-'——»- '• ;;-, •. i ^J^vf^p.;-*' -"]• 1 "-rjr-i— ;j } |
•'-•-• ; M^'-iTjJ!il:' ': ' -' •
. ,• . :•;•*••r'-Scr-'— ^~- '...J _ . - . •-
^^^Is^ZiZS^ii! LJ L£2fi2i__
^•^•J.fy^- ^£sS^-'. r I !| .:••'—•"7~=="
*^-4^.f-;--- .••- i'' •
«lit:_
t 1K3MH3V1.T,V
.- ',-~r-j
•IflEJII,
•y
-------
ATTACHMENT 3
Graded Granular Filter Medium
Granular Drain Materiel
(bedding)
Flexible Membrane Liner (FML)
Granular Drain Material
(bedding)
Flexible Membrane Uner (FML)
Low rVmeabWIty SoH. Compacted In LHn
(soil liner malarial)
Una: FMLthk*ne«>45mlh
recommended If liner It not
covered within 3 months.
SCHEMATIC PROFILE OF AN FMUCO^POSITC
DOUBLE LINER SYSTEM FOR A LANDFILL
OrmeniUns and SpecrficelkMn
.1,
Recommended Thickness > 6 m.
Maximum Head on Top Liner • 12 In.
Recommended Thickness > 12 In.
Hydraulic Conductivity > lilO'* cm/sec
• Recommended Thickness ol FML > 30 mils
(see note)
. Recommened Thickness > 12 m.
Hydraulic Conductivity > U10 * cm/sec
^ Drain Pipe I
• Recommended Thickness ol FML > 30 mils
(see note)
Recommended Thick new > 36 In.
Recommended Hydraulic Conductivity < 1»10"1
cm/sec
Prepared In 6 In. Lift*
Surface Scarified Between Lifts
Unsaturated Zone
Groundwater Level
Solid Waste
Filter Medium
Primary Leechate Colltctlon
Removal System
Tup Liner (FMt}
Secondary leachate Collection and
Removal System
Comprenion Connactlon (contact)
Between Soil and FML
Bottom Liner (compotlte FML and
compacted low permeability soil)
Native Soil Foundatton/Subtuie
-------
ATTACHMENT 4
VEGETATION
TOPSOIL
(60CM)
GRAVEL FILTER
(30 CM)
COBBLESTONE
(70 CM)
BIOTTC
BARRIER
: ' PROTECTIVE LAYER
FMB
COMPACTED SOIL
(90 CM)
GAS VENT
(30 CM)
WASTE
OPTIONAL BIOT1C BARRIER LAYER.
V-13
-------
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
EBASCO
160 Chubb Avenue, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071-3586, (201) 460-1900
September 28, 1988
MAR-16-88
Ms. Magalie Beausejour
Remedial Project Manager
U S Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
SUBJECT: REH III PROGRAM - EPA CONTRACT NO.68-01-7250
WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 112-2L37.0
MARATHON BATTERY COMPANY SITE, AREA II
CHEMICAL FIXATION VS. "LIMESTONE TREATMENT"
Dear Ms. Beausejour:
In accordance with the request you made in your September 14, 1988
letter, Ebasco has compared the "permanence" of the vault sediments
with the chemically fixated sediments.
The vault sediments resulted from treatment of the East Foundry Cove
sediments by mixing the sediments with 0.5% (by volume) limestone.
The limestone was used to maintain an alkaline pH in the treated
sediments so that the heavy metals would not be easily leached out.
If the heavy metals were leached out, the alkaline condition should
precipitate the heavy metals by forming metal hydroxides. The
effectiveness of this treatment is questionable if the treated
sediments (i.e., the vault sediments) are in direct contact with rain
water (especially, acid rain).
Metal hydroxides are practically insoluble in water but are soluble
in acidic solutions. Therefore, under the condition of direct
contact with acid rain, it is believed that the heavy metals in the
vault sediments would be eventually leached out.
The chemical fixation proposed to treat the East Foundry Cove
sediments is a silicate-based solidification/stabilization process.
In this treatment process, sodium silicate, Portland cement and
proprietary additives are added to the sediments. These treatment
chemicals/materials not only maintain the pH of the treated sediment
in an alkaline condition, but also can chemically bond heavy metals
to form metal silicates and/or physically encapsulate the heavy
metals. Metal silicates is not only insoluble in water but also very
resistant to acidic solution (e.g., acid rain).
-------
-2-
During the RI/FS for Marathon Battery Company Site - Area I,
treatability tests were performed on East Foundry Cove sediments by
using this silicate-based solidification/stabilization process. The
treated sediments passed the RCRA EP Toxicity test (essentially, an
acid leaching procedure).
Based on the above treatment mechanisms, it is our belief that the
chemically fixated sediments have a higher degree of permanence than
the vault sediments, if both are exposed to the same environment.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (201)
460-6077 or Harry Yeh at (201) 460-6502.
Very truly your
Neil Wilding
Site Manager
cc: D Sachdev
H Yeh
M Moese
File
-------
Public Health Service
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry
Memorandum
Date September 27, 1988
From Toxicologist, OHA, KRB
urgency Response Branch, Office of Health Assessment
Subject Health Consultation: Soil Cadmium Levels in Vegetable Gardens Associated
with Adverse Human Health Effects, Marathon Battery Site, Putnam County,
New York
To Mr. William Nelson
Ms. Denise Johnson
Public Health Advisor
EPA Region II
New York, New York
Through: Chief, Emergency Response Branch, OG
BACKGROUND
The site formerly known as Marathon Battery is located in Cold Springs,
Putnam County, New York and operated as a manufacturer of nickel-cadmium
batteries. Since 1981, the property has been used as a book distribution
storage facility. A Health Assessment was released by ATSDR on July 16,
1987. The site is approximately 11 acres with restricted access.
Twenty-nine single family homes are within 100 feet of the site perimeter,
and cadmium has migrated off-site into residential yards. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has requested that the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluate the public health
concerns from exposure to cadmium (Cd) in residential gardens. A site
visit was performed by Ms. Denise Johnson and Dr. David Mellard on
August 25, 1988. In the Health Assessment by ATSDR, and in previous
health consultations with Dr. David Mellard, ATSDR has requested that
additional residential soil samples be collected to better characterise
off-site levels of Cd in residential soil. Because these samples were not
performed, this consultation must assume that the limited residential soil
data to date characterizes conditions in the residential areas. This
assumption may or may not be valid.
DISCUSSION
Residential soil levels of Cd range from non-detectable to 67 ppm with
moat values below 24 ppm. Cadmium is known to bioaccumulate in plants to
various degrees; therefore, concern for potential human health effects has
boon expressed for consumers of garden vegetables grown in
cadmium-contaminated soil. At renal cortex levels between 200-400 ug/g,
damage to renal tubules results in proteinuria and glucosuria. An
-------
Page 2 - Mr. William Nelson
age-adjusted increased excretion in the urine of beta.-microglobulin
(B,-MB) can serve as subclinical evidence of renal tubular damage.
Small increases in urine Bj-MB are not considered a severe health
impact, but rather a biochemical sign that continued cadmium exposure
could lead to more severe health problems. Typical U.S. concentrations of
cadmium in the kidney cortex are between 20-35 ug/g with smokers having
almost twice the level of non-smokers. Cadmium toxicity was brought to
the forefront in recognizing the causal association between the
consumption of cadmium contaminated rice and drinking water and the
Japanese disease Itai-Itai. Most individuals affected were women above
the age of 40 years who had born several children, although more recent
studies have detected biochemical effects in adult males. Dietary Cd
intake in these women has been estimated at 300-600 ug/day (Priberg,
1971). The factors believed to have contributed to the susceptibility of
this subpopulation are listed below:
1. a diet relatively low in calcium and fat-soluble vitamins, such as
vitamin D,
2. the loss of bone minerals during pregnancy and lactation,
3. increased Cd absorption because of- iron deficiency and lactation,
4. trace mineral imbalances.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that an intake of 200
ug/day of cadmium over a 50-year period could produce subclinical kidney
damage in the most sensitive Individual and has recommended a "»^4.m«i
acceptable daily intake of 70 ug/day. The BPA has recently reported in
the July 1988 Superfund Public Health Evaluation manual, a value of 70 ug
Cd/day as an acceptable chronic intake in food. While WHO'S 200 ug/g Cd
in the kidney cortex has been generally accepted as the threshold level
for concern, other investigators have evidence that the critical
concentration of Cd in kidney cortex is higher (Roels, 200-250 ug/g,
humans; Nomiyama, 380-470 ug/g, monkeys; and Cole, 300-400 ug/g
humans)(Ellis, 1981; and Cole, 1983). In contrast, Kjellstrom (Friberg,
1985), in a review of several human and animal studies concludes that
10 percent of people with an average Cd renal cortex concentration of 200
ug/g could develop renal tubular damage with low molecular weight
proteinuria.
-------
Page 3 - Mr. William Nelson
The question has been raised as to what levels of Cd in residential garden
soil would lead to plant residue concentrations that could cause kidney
problems. Two plant categories are present in evaluating cadmium
aorption. Lettuce, cabbage, spinach, kale, and other such leafy type
vegetables are considered high accumulators of Cd. Typical concentrations
range from 5-10 ppm (dry weight) in these vegetables, when grown in soil
containing 70 ppm cadmium (Davis, 1984). At soil concentrations of
15 ppm, Smilde at. al. (1982), find levels of 3 ppm (dry weight) in carrot
and potato leaves, and 9 and 5 ppm (dry weight) in radish and lettuce
leaves, respectively. A non-linear relationship is shown to exist between
soil Cd levels of 5 to 16 ppm and the green leafy portions of radish,
lettuce, carrot, and potato plants with higher soil concentrations of Cd
leading to non-proportionally higher foliar Cd levels. Vegetable crops
such as tomatoes, onions, leeks, turnips, potatoes, sweet corn, beans,
beets, radishes, peas, carrots, and grains are low accumulators of
cadmium. A linear relationship has been shown to exist for the root of
radishes and carrots for soil levels between 5 and 16 ppm Cd (Smilde et.
al., 1982). From 5 to 16 ppm soil Cd, levels typically increased 2 to 4
times in lettuce, radishes, carrots, and wheat. At these same levels,
potato tubers did not accumulate increased levels of Cd. Similar results
were reported by Davis (1984) for soil levels between 1 and 12 ppm. Davis
also found that a ten-fold increase in soil Cd levels will result in
approximately a 3 to 4 fold increase in plant residue levels. Therefore,
a one-to-one relationship does not exist between soil Cd levels and plant
residue levels. Hence, an increase from 1 ppm to 10 ppm soil Cd will not
result in a 10 fold increase in plant residue levels (but rather a 2 to 4
fold increase depending on the plant species). Potato tubers show less
than a 2 fold increase when soil Cd levels increase from 1 to 10 ppm.
The typical U.S. soil concentration of Cd ranges from 0.01 to 7 ppm with a
median value of 0.5 ppm (Parr, et. al.. 1983). In a survey of major U.S.
growing areas uncontaminated by human activities other than normal
agricultural practices, Karen Wolnik of the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) reports mean (and imiTlimim) concentrations of Cd (ug/g wet weight) in
the following vegetables: lettuce 0.026 (0.16), potatoes 0.031 (0.182),
soybeans 0.059 (1.11), and sweet corn 0.0031 (0.0387). In soil containing
5 and 12 ppm Cd, Davis found 1.2 and 2.1 ppm (dry weight) in lettuce,
respectively. Since lettuce is 96 percent water, these values correspond
to 0.048 and 0.08 ug/g wet weight. At 20 ppm Cd in soil, a residue level
of 0.11 ppm wet weight is expected. In soil containing 5 and 15 ppm Cd,
Smilde (1982) found 1.5 and 5 ppm (dry weight) in lettuce, respectively.
This corresponds to approximately 0.268 ppm (wet weight) in lettuce at
20 ppm Cd in soil.
In low accumulator plants, residue levels of 0.3 to 0.6 ppm (dry weight)
typically are found when soil levels range from 1 to 12 ppm. In soil
containing 10 to 20 ppm Cd, residue levels of 0.6 to 1.0 ppm (dry weight)
-------
Page 4 - Mr. William Nelson
are expected (Davis, 1984). At 20 ppm Cd in garden soil, typical residue
level in the low accumulator species would be approximately 0.04-0.1 ppm
(wet weight) assuming low accumulator vegetables to range from 90 to
96 percent water (Davis, 1984). Table 1 depicts estimated Cd intake using
the above data and FDA's 1981/82 Total Diet Study.
Table 1
Normal Diet estimated ug Cd/day
g vegetables ug/g Cd plant if 50% of
consumed per residue (wet wt) vegetables
day at 20 ppm Cd soil consumed
home grown
High Accumulator 55* 0.27 7.4
Vegetables
Low Accumulator 400* 0.04-0.1 8^20
Vegetables
Potatoes* 159* 0.042* 6.7*
Other Foods* 16.7*
Amount Cd from
commercial vegetables 2
when 50% vegetables are
home grown 41-53
*(Levels reported by FDA as part of 1981/82 Total Diet Study, Gartrell fit.
ll., 1986)
The estimated dietary Cd intake when garden vegetables (grown on soil
containing 20 ppm Cd) constitutes 50 percent of vegetable consumption
ranges from 41-53 ug/day. This value is below the RPA and WHO acceptable
dietary intake of 70 ug Cd/day and is far below the 200 ug/day intake
necessary to lead to subclinical kidney problems in the most sensitive
individual after 50 years of continuous exposure. In addition, it is
unlikely that a residential vegetable garden in this neighborhood can
supply the large amounts of vegetables over an extended period of time to
lead to an intake level that would cause kidney problems.
Bpidemiological studies have been conducted evaluating health effects
associated with consumption of home grown vegetables in Cd containing
soils. Large concentrations of Cd have been found in garden soils in the
village of Shipham, England. Residents have been exposed since at least
-------
Page 5 - Mr. William Nelson
1940 to soil levels ranging from 2-520 ppm with typical levels being
around 90 ppm (Thornton, et. aJL., 1980). Comprehensive environmental
assessments and health studies have been conducted addressing diet and
garden vegetable consumption. In a dietary survey of Shipham residents
where Cd levels in garden vegetables and vegetable consumption was
monitored closely, mean dietary Cd intake was estimated to be 29-35 ug/day
(Sherlock, et. aj,. ) . In a 40 year follow-up mortality study of Shipham
residents, Inskip and Beral (1982) make the following statement, "Thus if
cadmium contamination has any effect on the mortality pattern in Shipham
it is slight and does not present a serious health hazard to the
residents" .
The area surrounding the Marathon facility is heavily vegetated, thereby
reducing the potential for contaminated soil to contribute to atmospheric
contamination. The degree to which the historical operation of the
Marathon facility has contributed to local air pollution cannot be
determined, but recent air monitoring at the site could not detect
elevated levels of Cd in the air.
Another potential source of Cd to local residents is through consumption
of contaminated shellfish (i.e., crabs) from the Hudson River and Foundry
Cove. Local and State health authorities have issued public health
advisories suggesting that the public not eat more than one meal a week- of
crabs taken from the Hudson River.
CONCLUSION
Residential soil levels adjoining the Marathon Battery site range up to 67
ppm Cd. A potential public health threat could exist should residents
consume large quantities of garden vegetables and fruits over a long
period of time, which are grown in soil containing elevated levels of Cd.
To determine the extent of residential soil Cd levels, additional soil
analysis is required. Daily Cd intake between 300-600 ug/day for several
decades has been shown to cause kidney problems thus resulting in the WHO
estimation that an intake of 200 ug/day ;over a 50-year period may lead to
subclinical kidney problems in the most sensitive individuals. Both WHO
and EPA have established an acceptable daily intake of 70 ug Cd/day. At
soil Cd levels around 20 ppm, consumption of garden vegetables and fruits
are unlikely to lead to kidney problems from dietary Cd intake.
1. Remediate areas with potential use as residential gardens where soil
Cd levels are around 20 ppm.
2. Additional residential soil analysis should be conducted to determine
the extent of Cd in residential soils.
-------
Page 6 - Mr. William Nelson
3. Alleviate residential fear of consuming home grown vegetables by
analyzing Cd content of vegetables grown in remediated, residential
soil at this site.
David N. Mallard, Ph.D.
Toxicologist
-------
REFERENCES
10.
11.
12.
13.
14
Beavington, F. 1975. Heavy metal contamination of vegetables and soil
in domestic gardens around a smelting complex. Environmental Pollution
9:211-217.
Burau, R.G. 1983. National and local dietary impact of cadmium in
south coastal California soils. Bcotoxieoloov and Environmental Safety
7:53-57.
Cole J.F. and Volpe, R. 1983. The effect of cadmium on the
environment. EcotOKtcoloov >*vi *TiviroT*f|^t>tal Safety 7151—159.
Davis, R.D. 1984. Cadmium — a complex environmental problem, Part II.
Cadmium in sludges used as fertilizer. FT>rT4gT1lt4iTi 40:117-234.
Bllis, K.J. 1981. Critical Organ concentration of Cadmium in
occupationally exposed workers. In Proceedings. 3rd International
f><*n^Ttn £pr»*frranca. mym4t feb. 1981. pp 161-165. ILZRO. Hew York.
Friberg, L., Blinder, C., Kjellstrom, T., and Nordberg, 6. Cadmium and
Health; A ToxicolOQJcal and Epidemioloqieal Appraisal. Volume I, T.
Kjellstrom, "Renal Effects", pg 21-108, 1985.
Friberg, I*., Piscator, II., Nordberg, G. Cadmium in the Environment.
CRC Press, Inc., Cleveland, 1971.
Gartrell, N.J. 1986. Pesticides, selected elements, and other
Chemicals in Adult Total Diet samples, October 1980-March 1982.
Inskip, H., and Beral, B. 1982. Mortality of Shipham residents:
40-year follow-up. The Lancet. April 17, 896-899.
Naylor, L.N., and Loehr, R.C. 1981. Increase in dietary cadmium as a
result of application of sewage sludge to agricultural land.
Pnviro™>^riital 3ci**nce ff*v1 Technology 15:881—886.
Parr, J.F., marsh, P.B., and Kla, J.M. 1983. Land treatment of
Hazardous Wastes. Agricultural Environmental Quality Institute,
Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsvilla, Maryland, Noyes Data
Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey.
Smilde, K.W., Van Driel, W., and Van Luit, B. 1982. Constraints in
cropping heavy-metal contaminated fluvial sediments. The Science of
the Total gT|virorrmf>rt 25:225-244.
Sherlock, J.C., Smart, G.A., and Walters, B. 1983. Dietary Surveys on
a population at Shipham, Somerset, United Kingdom. The Science of the
Total Ttr\'a* T-rtTrmftnfr 9Q ; 121-142 .
, Thornton, S, John, S., Moorcroft, S., and Watt, J. 1980. Cadmium at
Shipham - A unique example of environmental geochemistry and health.
yg^cft Sii^sty*^ces yy^JI ^Tuvironmental Health 14:27—37.
1984. Cadmium
G.L., Meyer, M.W.,
15. Van Bruwaene, R., Kirchmann, R., and Impens, R.
contamination in agriculture and zootechnology.
16. Wolnik, K.A., Fricke, R.L., Capar, S.G., Braude,
Satzger, R.D., and Bonnin, E. 1983. Elements in Major Raw Agricultural
Crops in the United States. 1. Cadmium and lead in Lettuce, peanuts,
potatoes, soybeans, sweet corn, and wheat. Journal of Agricultural and
vrfrrf r-h^-trv 31:1240-1244.
-------
REMEDIATION OF RESIDENTIAL YARDS
In September 1986, the USEPA and their Technical Assistance Team
collected twenty-two (22) surface soil samples from the yards of
residences located on Constitution Avenue and The Boulevard, in
the Village of Cold Spring, New York. The analytical results
from these surface soil samples indicated that cadmium
concentrations ranged from 0 to 67 mg/kg, cobalt from 0. to 34
mg/kg and nickel from 0 to 82 mg/kg. Lead was also detected;
its concentrations ranged from 0 to 42 mg/kg.
Because only one or two soil samples were collected from each of
the residential yards, the areal extent of contaminated soil re-
quiring remediation cannot be fully delineated. Forxthis reason,
two cases were examined for clean-up of metal-contaminated soil
in residential yards. In the first case, only those residential
yards having soils contaminated with relatively high cadmium
concentrations (20 ppm Cd) are considered. In the second case,
the soils in all residential yards investigated are considered
contaminated, regardless of the measured metal concentrations.
Each of these cases would increase the volume of contaminated
soil to be treated and disposed of for Alternatives S-3 and S-4
of the* FS report. The effects of these cases on the costs of
Alternatives S-3 and S-4 are discussed below.
Case I -Clean-up of Selected Backyards
Based on a cadmium clean-up level of 20 ppm, as suggested by the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), surface
soils in the backyards of houses located at Nos. 2, 4, 12, 16,
20, 22, and 24 Constitution Avenue would require remediation.
The cadmium concentrations in the surface soil samples collected
from the backyards of these residences ranged from 22 ppm to 67
ppm.
Assuming that removal of the top six inches of surface soil in
these backyards would lower cadmium concentrations in soil to
less than 20 ppm, then an additional volume of 600 cubic yards
of metal-contaminated soil would require treatment and
disposal. Accordingly, the costs of Alternatives S-3 and S-4
require revision to reflect the treatment and disposal of this
additional volume of metal-contaminated soil. The revised costs
for Alternatives S-3 and S-4 are summarized in Table I.
Case II - Clean-Up of All Residential Yards Investigated
This case assumes that the clean-up in question can be achieved
by removing the top six inches of surface soils from the yards
of all houses adjacent to the former Marathon Battery plant
grounds. Based on this assumption, an additional volume of
1,520 cubic yards of metal-contaminated soil would require
treatment and disposal for Alternatives S-3 and S-4. The
revised costs for these remedial alternatives are presented in
Table II.
8313b
-------
TABLE I
CASE I - CLEAN-UP OF SELECTED BACKYARDS
REVISED COST ESTIMATES OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES S-3 AND S-4
Alternative S-3
Building Decontamination/Soil Excavation/Fixation/
Enhanced Volatilization/On-Site Disposal
Cost
Item
Original Cost
In The FS Report
(1)
Additional Cost
Capital Cost $3,463,000 $138,000
O&M Cost 330,000 (1 yr) 38,340 (1 yr)
16,000 (2-30 yr) 0 (2-30 yr)
Present
Worth
4,000,000
177,000
Revised
Cost
$3,601,000
368,340
(1 yr)
16,000
(2-30 yr)
4,177,000
Alternative S-4
Building Decontamination/Soil Excavation/Fixation/
Enhanced Volatilization/Off-Site Disposal
Cost
Item
Original Cost
In The FS Report
Capital Cost $4,609,000
Additional Cost
$321,500
(1)
Revised
Cost
$4,930,500(2)
O&M Cost
Present
Worth
Note: (1)
316,000 (1 yr)
4,910,000
37,300 (1 yr)
356,900
353,300
(1 yr)
5,266,900
Additional cost of clean-up of contaminated soil from
some selected backyards.
(2) The cost is based on disposal of the fixated soil/dust
at a commercially operated disposal facility. For
disposal at a local sanitary landfill, the capital cost
and present worth can be reduced to $4,219,300 and
$4,555,700 respectively. .
8313b
-------
TABLE II
CASE II - CLEAN-UP OF ALL RESIDENTIAL YARDS
REVISED COST ESTIMATES OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES S-3 AND S-4
Alternative S—3
Building Decontamination/Soil Excavation/Fixation/
Enhanced Volatilizatioh/On-Site Disposal
Cost
Item
Original Cost
In The FS Report
Additional Cost
(1)
Capital Cost $3,463,000 $399,000
O&M Cost 330,000 (1 yr) 76,000 (1 yr)
16,000 (2-30 yr) 0 (2-30 yr)
Present
Worth
4,000,000
472,600
Revised
Cost
$3,862,000
406,000
(1 yr)
16,000
(2-30 yr)
4,472,600
Alternative S-4
Building Decontamination/Soil Excavation/Fixation/
Enhanced Volatilization/Off-Site Disposal
Cost
Item
Original Cost
In The FS Report
Capital Cost $4,609,000
O&M Cost 316,000 (1 yr)
Present
Worth
Note:
4,910,000
Additional Cost
$816,000
95,300 (1 yr)
906,600
(1)
Revised
Cost
$5,425,000(2)
411,300
(1 yr)
5,816,600(2)
(1) Additional cost of clean-up of contaminated soil from all
the residential yards investigated.
(2) The cost is based on disposal of the fixated soil/dust
at a commercially operated disposal facility. For
disposal at a local sanitary landfill, the capital cost
and present worth can be reduced to $4,596,400 and
$4,988,000 respectively.
8313b
-------
JNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL OTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
DATE:
Analysis of Risk Assessments for the Marathon Battery Site
JBJECT:
FROM: Peter Grevatt, Risk Assessor
Program Support Branch
' Beverly Kolenberg, Assistant Regional Counsel
Office of Regional Counsel
ATSDR Health Consultation; Soil Cadmium Levels in Vegetable
Gardens Associated With Adverse Human Health Effects.
Mellard makes the following assumptions in his review of soil
cadmium levels in vegetable gardens associated with human
health effects:
Dietary intake of high and low-cadmium accumulating
vegetables is as reported in the F.D.A. 1981/82 total diet
study. (Gartrell et. al., 1986).
50% of vegetables consumed are home-grown.
Accumulation of cadmium by vegetable classes is as reported
in studies published in the literature (Davis, 1984; Smilde, 1982)
The maximum daily dietary intake of cadmium recommended by
EPA (1988) and WHO is 70 ug Cd/day. Mellard estimates (using
the above assumptions) that the daily dietary intake of cadmium
when garden soils contain 20 ppm cadmium will range from 41-53
ug/d. I see no reason to question this estimation. Thus, as
Mellard states, 20 ppm Cd in garden soils is expected to be
protective of public health.
Question: Are there soil cleanup levels higher than 20 ppm which
would be protective of public health?
EPA bases its determination of protective cleanup levels
on a comparison of the actual amount of cadmium ingested with a
Reference Dose, the maximum ingested amount per kg body weight
which is considered safe. For cadmium, the Reference Dose is 1
ug Cd/kg/d, corresponding to a maximum safe daily dose of 70
ug/d for an average 70 kg adult. Mellard estimates the dietary
intake of cadmium from soils containing 20 ppm to be approximately
40-50 ug/d. Thus, there are higher soil cadmium levels which
by Mellard's analysis would be likely to produce a daily dose
REGION II FORM 132O-1 (9/85)
-------
-2-
below the Reference Dose. However, it is important to recognize
that biological effects rarely occur in the clear-cut manner
suggested by the Reference Dose (RFD) concept, with all doses
below the Reference Dose considered safe, and all those above
the RFD considered unsafe. Rather, biological effects occur
in a continuum. As the Reference Dose is approached and exceeded,
the likelihood of adverse effect begins to increase. Therefore,
it may not be appropriate to seek out the absolute highest soil
contamination level which produces a daily cadmium dose just
slightly below the Reference Dose in our model.
Question: Are there other means to protect residents from potentially
harmful intakes of cadmium?
Presumably, since the primary issue of concern here is
cadmium intake via ingestion of cadmium-accumulating vegetables,
limiting intake of these vegetables will most likely prevent
excessive cadmium ingestion. It is critical to consider
however, that cadmium will not break down with time, and is not
likely to migrate from soils. The effective enforcement of
such dietary restrictions years in the future seems highly
unlikely, and thus this course of action may not offer long-
term protection of human health.
EBASCO "Risk Analysis for Cadmium in Vegetables Grown in
Contaminated Soil"
EBASCO presents a "semi-quantitative" assessment of cadmium
intake via ingestion of garden vegetables grown in cadmium-
containing soils. The assessment is less-specific than ATSDR's
in that average and maximum values for cadmium uptake by vegetables
were utilized - we know that cadmium uptake by different
vegetable types differs widely. The EBASCO assessment has two
additional problems: The "acceptable intake" is outdated, and
more importantly, an absorption factor for cadmium following
ingestion is inappropriately applied to the acceptable intake
value. Although the EBASCO assessment roughly agrees with
ATSDR in the recommended cleanup level, I think its problems
diminish its usefulness to EPA at this time.
VINSON AND ELKINS/JEFF CIVINS MEMO
Jeff Civins accurately summarizes Bert Valee's presentation
during the September 1, 1988 meeting. The human biology, bio-
-------
-3-
chemistry, and nutrition of cadmium have been studied very
sparingly; much of it is unknown. Valee's personal thinking is
that like zinc, cadmium will probably be shown not to have
toxic effects at low levels of ingestion; however, this has not
yet been decisively demonstrated in the laboratory or by epi-
demiological studies.
Valee suggests that ATSDR and NYSDOH present studies
demonstrating cadmium toxicity following ingestion in humans.
As he is well aware, these studies simply are not available.
Similarly, exhaustive studies demonstrating the safety of
cadmium ingestion are also lacking. In light of the paucity of
scientific evidence on the safety of cadmium ingestion, EPA is
correct in taking a conservative approach in this matter.
cc: Magalie Beausejour
Nickie DiForte
Doug Tomchuk
-------
1///W
-------
September 9, 1938
Toxicologist, QHA, ERB
Emergency Response Branch, Office of Health Assessment
Health Consultation: Soil Cadmium Levels in Vegetable Gardens Associated
with Adverse Human Health Effects, Marathon Battery Site, Putnam County,
New York
Mr. William Nelson
Ms. Denise Johnson
Public Health Advisor
EPA Region II
New York, New York
Through: Health Assessment Coordination nativity, OHA
Chief, Emergency Response Branch, DHA
BACKGROUND
The -former Marathon Battery facility is located in Cold Springs, Putnam
County, New York, and previously operated as a manufacturer at
nickwl-cadmium batteries. Since IvEl, ths property has been used as »
book distribution stor'age facility- *•'• H» (EPA) has requested that The
Agency for To;-:ic Substances and Disease ueoistry (ATSDR) evaluate the
public heal Lh concerns from exposure to u-ad.iuL.im
-------
the -fore-front in recognising the causal association between the
consumption o-f cadmium contaminated rice and drinking water and the
Japanese disease Itai-Itai. Most individuals a-f-feeted were women above*
the Age of 40 years who had born several children, although more recent
studies h«av« detected biochemical effects in adutls males. Dietary Cd
intake in these women has been estimated at 300-600 ug/day , 200-250 uy/g, humans; Nonuyama,
3QO-470 ug/g. monkeys: and Cole, 300--100 ug/g humans) (El 1 i 3, 19£31; and
Cole, 19S3) . In contrast, Kjellstroni (Friberg. 1985), in a it*view of
several human «.nd animal stud:»iB concludes that. 10*1 of people with «n
average Cd renal cortex concentration of 2 JO ucj/cj uould develop rcnc»i
tubular damage with low molecular wciyht proteinuria.
The question has been raised as to what levels in residential garden soil
will lead to plant residue concentrations thai, can cause kidney problems.
Two plant categories are present in evaluatinc cadmium sorption. Lettuce.
cabbage, -spinach, kale and other such leitfy type v&getables are considered
high accumulators of Cd. Typical uoncent-.ratians range from 5-10 ppin idry
weight) in these vegetables when grown in soil containing 70. ppiti cadmium
(Davis, 1984). At soil concentrations of 15 ppm, 3mild» w>t. al . '.1932),
find levels of 3 ppm (dry weight) in carrot and potato leaves and 9 and 5
ppm (dry weight) in radish and lettuce leaves, respectively. A non-linear
relationship is shown to exist between soil Cd levels of 3 to 16 ppm and
the green leafy portion?, of radish, lettuces, carrot and potato plants with
higher soil concentrations of Cd leading Lo non-proportionaliy higher
foliar Cd lovwlo. Vegetable crops, such asi tomatoes, onions, leeks,
turnips, potatoes, sweet corn, beans, beets, radishes, peas, carrots, and
grains are low accumulators of cadmium. ^ linear relationship has been
shown to exist for the root of radishes and carrots for soil levels
between 5 and 16 ppm Cd (SmildE cj;. al.. , i':?8^:) . From 5 to 16 ppm soil (.3d,
levels typically increased 2 to 4 times in lettuce, radishes, carrots and
wheat. At these same levels, potato tubers did not accumulate increased
levels of Cd. Similar results ware reported by Davis (1984) for soil
levels between 1 and 12 ppm. Davis also found that a ten-fold increase in
soil Cd levels will result in approximate!v a three to four fold increase
in plant residue levels. Thsruforc. a one-to-one relationship does not
exist between soil Cd levelsand plant residue levels. Hence, an increase
-------
SENT EY:ATSI'R ERCB
-4: Q9PM
•46447^
7304434;8
•from 1 ppm to 10 ppm soil Cd will not result in a 10 -fold increase in
plant residue levels (but rather a 2 to 4 -fold increase depending on the
plnnt species). Potato tubers show less than a 2 -fold increase when soil
Cd levels increase •from 1 to 10 ppm.
The typical U.S. soil concentration of Cd ranges from O.Oi to 7 ppm with e
median value of 0.5 ppm (Parr, g»jt. ai . , 1903). In a survey of major U.S.
growing areas uncontaminatsd by human activities other than .normal
agricultural practices, Karen Wolnik of the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) reports mean (and maximum) concentrations of Cd (ug/g wet weight) in
the -following vegetables: lettucs 0.026 (0.16). potatoes 0.031 (0. 182) ,
soybeans 0.059 (1.11), and sweet corn 0.0031 \O.03S7). In soil containi.-g
5 and 12 ppm Cd. Davis found 1.2 and 2.1 ppm (dry weight) in lettuce,
respectively. Since lettuce is 96V. w^ter - , thest values correspond to
0.040 and O.OB ug/g wet weight. At 20 ppm CId in soil, a residue le^ei o-f
0.132 ppm wet weight is expected. In soil containing 3 and IS ppm Cd,
Smilde (1982) -found 1.3 and 5 ppm (dry weight? in lettuce, respectively.
This corresponds to approximately 0.268 ypni (u«t weight) in lettuce at 20
ppm Cd in soi 1 .
In low accumulator plants, residua lesv&ls of 0.3 to 0.6 ppm (dry weight)
typically are -found when soil levels range fro;n 1 to 12 ppm. In soil
containing 1O to 20 ppm Cd, residue levels o-f 0.6 to 1.0 ppm (dry weight)
are expected (Davis, 1984). At 20 ppm Ccl in yarden soil, typical residue
low accumulator species would be approximately O.U4-0.1 ppm
assuming low accumulator vegetables to range from 90 to 9o/.
1984). Table 1 depict1.! estimated Cd intake using the above
s 1981/82 Total Diet Study.
level in the
(wet weight)
water (Davis.
data and FDA'
Table 1
Normal Diet
g vegetables
consumed per
day
estimated
ug/g Cd plant
residue (wet wt)
at 20 ppm Cd soi1
ucj Cd.-rtay
if SO'/, of
vegetables
consumed
home grown
High Accumulator 55* 0.27 7.4
Vegetables
Low Accumulator 400* 0.4-0.1 8-20
Vegetables
Potatoes* 159* 0.042* o. 7*
Other Foods* 16.7*
Amount Cd -from
commercial vegetables 2
when 507. vegetables are
home grown 41—S3
*(Leve.s reported by FDA as part of 1981/02 Total Diet Study, Gartrel1
-------
The estimated dietary Cd intake when garden vegetables vgrown on soil
containing 20 ppm Cd) consitutes 507. o-f vegetable consumption ranges from
41-53 ug/day. This value is below ths EPA and WHO accetable dietary
intake of 70 ug Cd/day and is -far below the 200 ug/day intake necess-r y to
lead to subclinical kidney problems inthe moat sensitive individual after
SO years of continuous exposure. In addition,, it is unlikely that a
roaidenti.nl vegetable garden in this neighborhood can supply the large
•mounts of vegetable* over an extended period o-f time to lead to an intake
level that would causa kidney problems.
Epidemiological studies have been conducted evaluating health effects
associated with eonsumption of horn* grown vegetables in Cd containing
soils. Large concentrations of Cd h*va been found in garden soils in the
village of Shipham, England. Residents have- bean exposed since at least
1940 to soil l«Bv«l« ranging fru.u 2-320 ppm with typical levels being
Around 90 ppm (Thornton, g_t. aJL.. , 1700). Comprehensive envir onmonLai
assessments and health studies havw been conducted addressing diet and
garden vegetable consumption. In « dietary survey of Shipham residents
where Cd levels in garden vegetables and vegetable consumption was
monitored closely, mean dietary Cd intake w*s «stimated to be J9-35 ug/day
(Sherlock, c?t_. cJ.. ) . In a 40 ye«r ~ollow-up tiiortality study of tihiphcuii
residents, Inskip and Beral (19B2) make the fuilowing statement, "Thus 1
cadmium contamination has "any effect on the mortality pattern in Shipharn
it is slight and does not present a serious health hazard to the
residents". The? authors found A weak association with cadmium exposure
and hypertensive «nd cerebrovasculor disease. The point to remember- is
that potential exposure at this village WAS to typical Cd garden soil
levels around 90 ppm with a maximum value ot 520 ppm.
The- area surrounding the Marathon facility is heavily vegetated, thereby
reducing the potential for contaminated soi .1 to contribute to ^Lffiospher i»:
contamination. The degree to whi L;-I the hi snorical operation of the
Marathon -ability has contributed to local «ir pollution can not be
determined, but recent air monitoring at Ll.e site could not detect
elevaLeu levels of Cd in the air.
*
Another potential source of Cd to local i esidents is through consumption
of contaminated shellfish (i.e.. crabs) tram the Hudson River and Foundry
Cove. Local and State health authoriti*« have issued public health
advisories suggesting that the public net. eat more than one meal c* week ot
crabe tav.en from the Hudson River.
CONCLUSION
Resident! al soil level* adjoining the Har.athon Battery site range up to o.:
ppm Cdi therefore, a potential public health threat could e::xst should
residents consume large quantities of garden vegetables and fruits over
long period of time, which are grown in -soil containing elevated levels
Cd. To determine the extent of residential soil Cd levels, «ddi tiongil
coil analysis is required. Daily Cd int*k« between 300-toOO ug/day for
several decades has been shown to «:ause kidney problems thus lesulling in
the WHO estimaLion that an intake of 200 ug/'day over a 50-year period may
1ead to aubclinical kidney problems in ths? most sensitive individuals.
-------
Both WHO and EPA have established an acceptable daily intake ur /«."» ug
Cd/day. At soil Cd levels around 10 ppm. consumption of garden vegetables
and -fruits <*re unlikely to lead to kidney problems from dietarv Cd intaks.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Remediate areas with potential use as residential gardens where soil
Cd levels are around 20 ppm. Additional residential soil •nalyais
should be conducted to determine if elevated levels of Cd arc prasenl
in residential areas.
2. Alleviate residential tsar o-f consuming home grown vegetables by-
analysing Cd content o-f vegetables grown in remediated, residential
soil at this site.
David N. fife Hard, Ph.D.
Tuxicologi st
REFERENCES
Beavington, F. 1^75. Heavy metal containinaiiion o-f vegetables and soil
in domestic gardens around a smelting cample::. Environmental Hoi 'J uti_on
9:211-217,
2. Burau, R.I3. 1983. National and local dietary impact of cadmium in
south coastal California soils. £cwi'::o: icol oav and Environmental aafetv
7iS3-57.
3. Cole J.F. and Volpe, R. 19B3. The effect of cadmium on the
environment. E£c..otQj;; •*• g o 1 o Q v •"< r \ f.i E n v :i, ran m ts n t a 1 S a f e t y_ 7151-15'::.
4. Davis, R.D. 1964. CarimiuiTi — a cample.: environmental problem, Part II.
Cadmium in sludgeis used as fertiliser. Eitneri antji.a. 40:117-234'.
5. Ellis, K.J. WS1. Critical Orgs-.n concentration of Cadmium in
uccupati onal 1 y exposed workers. In ^T'ocf^edi. ry3S__t 3r_d Inter'nationai
Cadiiiium Conference, Hi ami . Fab. .;951. pp 161-165. ILZRG, Nt-m rorl:.
6. Friberg, L. . Elinder, C... Kjellstrom, T., and N'ordberg, G. C^cinti i.in. _«ncj_
Health; A TQM i col ooi cal and Eoiuemi p!.ooieal Appraisal. Volume? I, I.
Kjellstrom, "Renal Effects", py 21-iOo. 1985.
7. Fribcrg, L. , P'iftCAtor, I"!. , Nordberg. ij. Cacimiurn in tha Environment-.
CRC Press, Inc., Cleveland. 1971.
B. Gartrall, M.J. 1986. Pesticides, selected elements, and other
Chemicals in Adult Total Diet sampls.--*, October 1980-March 19B2.
i3.-3urna.laf tht? ftssiociati on of Official Anal y tic.-a 1 Chemists o9: 14o- 161.
9. Inskip, H., and Beral, E. 1992. Mortality of Shipham residents:
40-year follow-up. The__ Lane at. April 17, 996-899.
10. r«4aylor, L.N., and Loehr, hl.C. 1981. Increase in dietarv cadmium as a
result of application of sewage sludge to agricultural land.
Environmental Science . arnJ Technology 13:331-836.
11. Parr, J.P., marsh, P.B., and Kia, J.M.. 1983. Land . t r _e?_a r m en I o f
H.r«rargpus UJ.3at.aSj,, Aoriuul tural Environmc?ntal Quality Institute,
Agricultural Research Sssrvice, U3DA, IJeltsvillo, Maryland., tJoves Data
Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey. •
12. isiruiu«. K.W.. Van Driel, W. , and Van Luit,%B. 19B2. Constraints in
cr\. Tpir.g heavy-metal contami n«ir.Bd fluvi«l sediments. The.' Science of
-------
.••-'-i->C-i. K
13. Sherlock, J.C., Smart, G.A., and Walters, E. 1983. Dietary Surveys on
a population at Shipham. Somerset. United Kingdom. Tnc Science) ot the
Total Environment 2'?: 121-142.
14. Thornton, 5, John, S. , Moorcrott, 5., and Watt, J. 19E3O. Cadmium at
Shipham - A unique example o-f environmental geochemistry and hetJtlth.
Trace Substances and Environmental Health 14:27-37.
13. Van Sruwaene, R. , Kirchmann., R. , £>nd Inipens. R. 1984. Cadmium
contamination' in agriculture and ^ootechnolouy. Ex pur i. ent i a 40:43-52.
16. Wolnik, K.A., Fricke, R.L., Capar, S.G., Braude, G.L., Meyer, h.W.,
Sats^er, R.D., and Bonnin, E. 19S3. Elements in Major Raw Agricultural
Crops in the United States. 1. Cadmium and lead in Lettuce, peanuts,
potatoes, soybeans, sweet corn, and wheat. Journal at An cultural and
Food Chemistry 31:1240-1244.
-------
ATTACHMENTS TO
APPENDIX C
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH JMS* OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTI-
CORNING TOWER
CAV1D AXtbHOO. M 0.
THE GOVERNOR NELSON A ROCKEFELLER EMPIRE STATE PLAZA
March 12, 1986
• ALBANY. N.Y. 1223
UftOA A. RANDOLPH. M 0.. M 11-
Or MTV
WILLIAM f LEAW
0»mir 0"»fttr
The Cancer Surveillance Program of the New York State Department of Health
has completed the Investigation of Census Tracts 106 and 107 1n the Town of
PhlUpstown (Putnam County) which you requested. The complete report 1s
enclosed.
In summary, the Incidence of cancer for both sexes for 1976 through 1982
was no different than that of other similar areas 1n New York State, excluding
New York City. Based on statistical testing, none of the observed numbers of
cases '-ere significantly different from the expected numbers. The small
deviations seen between the observed numbers of people with cancer and the
expected numbers, based on population rates, were within the range which
occurs by chance when comparing a single cc.-nunity with a large population.
We receive iiany cluster -eqi-ests from people concerned about the
environment and Us affect on Developing cancer. For a cause and effect link
to be established, any exposure of concern nust have taken place 10 to 20
years iefcre the cancer is diagnosed. The "latency period is very long for
•nal' grant tumors. Therefore it is very difficult to establish an associ-
ation. Gi-.en the age and sex composition of your community, the Incidence of
cancer is what would £e expected in a similar community in New York State. It
is very unlikely that It is 1-rked
to the study area in PhiUpstcwn.
to any environmental factor that is unique
I hope this report answers your questions about cancer incidence 1n Census
Tracts 106 and 107 In the Town of Phllipstown. If you have any further
questions, kindly give me a call.
Sincerely,
Holly L.^owe, Ph.D.
Director
Cancer SurVel l^nce Program
HH/dmp
encs.
cc: Or. CeMartino
Dr. John Simons
-------
INCIDENCE OF CANCER IN CENSUS TRACT 106 AND 107
t
IN PHILIPSTOWN (PUTNAM) NEW YORK
Background
The Investigation was conducted 1n response to a telephone call received
by Or. William Burnett, Director of the New York State Cancer Registry,
regarding cancer Incidence In Cold Spring. New York. Or. Burnett quoted
Incidence rates for Putnam County and mentioned that they were considerably
below the New York State average. He referred the requestor to Or. Susan
Standfast, who was then the Director of the Cancer Surveillance Program, 1n
case she desired infomation for a smaller area.
Or. Standfast received a letter from the requestor on November 26, 1984.
The requestor listed several persons who had cancer and stated her belief that
cancer incidence was high in the area of Cold Spring. In correspondence dated
December 6, '984, 3 cancer s-rvelTance form was sent to the requestor. The
purpose of fe Swr^ei''ance 'z™ used at tr-at t^e «as to specify the exact
geographic area of c;ncern. to Identify any potential environmental sources of
concern, ana to state particular cancer sites of concern.
Since we aid not receive any Information from the requestor, on March 20,
1985, a follow-up letter was sent to the requestor from the Cancer Surveil-
lance ProgrM». ~t.e r»-;«estsr contacted the Program on March 25, 1985 to state
that she was still interested in the investigation. At that time, she
mentioned that a battery manufacturing company was reputed to have dumped
cadmium Into the harbor. On Varch 28, 1985, a map of the area of concern was
received and tk.e Investigation was able to proceed.
-------
Methods
The study area was defined as Census Tracts 106 and 107 1n the Town of
Phlllpstown, which 1s In Putnam County. The boundaries of these two census
tracts are contiguous with the northern, eastern, and western borders of
Phlllpstown. The southern border 1s County Highway 11, which 1s also known as
Travis Corners Road or Snake H111 Road. The first step was to Identify all
cases of cancer diagnosed In Census Tracts 106 and 107 1n PhlUpstown during
the study period. The source for these data was the New York State Cancer
Registry.
The Registry contains information on all cases of cancer reported by
hospitals and physicians to the New York State Department of Health, as
mandated by law. The period studied for this investigation was the period
1976 through 1982, the -nost recent year for *hich reporting was considered
cimplete for s^all area analysis when the study began.
Variation in ca-ncer '-icidence a^crg different geographic areas reflects
not on^y tr.e -; f • ere**: ?s in cancer 'icidence, 5ut also t.'.e practices of
d'agr.osing, t'eatirg, ard recors'tg cancers in various areas in the State.
Ci.^p'eteness a*-; ac:.-a:y of the Registry depends upon reporting from
hospitals. It is est'r.ated that from upstate New York ever 95 percent of all
cancer cases are reported.
A listing of cases Dy street rame was obta'ned from ?hil1pstown and the
surrounding areas. The aiiress for each case was examined to determine
•hether the person 11.ed in Census Tract 1C6 or 107 at the time of diagnosis.
All cases with a street aiiress located within the census tracts were grouped
£y t.mor site, sex, arc age group, '^ese are referred to as "observed* cases.
-------
- 3 -
The next step was to determine whether this observed number of cancer
cases exceeded the number that would be expected 1n an area of Census Tracts
106 and 107's population size and age composition, 1f Us cancer Incidence
rate were the same as the rate for other areas 1n New York State, excluding
New York City (upstate New York).
According to the 1980 U.S. Census, the population 1n Census Tracts 106 and
107 was 5,839, which Included 2.860 males and 2,979 females. Age- and sex-
specific Incidence rates for 1978 - 1982 In upstate New York were used to
estimate the expected number of cases for the most common cancer sites and for
all sites combined among the residents of the study area. Thus, the expected
number of cancer cases was adjusted for sex and age.
Seventeen of the most common cancer sites were examined among the men.
These Included, among others, lung, colon, rectum, prostate, lymphoma,
leukemia, and bladder. Nineteen of the most common sites were examined among
tfe wcmen. In addition to the aforementioned sites (except prostate), cancers
of the feast ana fe^-a".e '•t;-:duct^e organs were also included. The sites
are griped in the table to protect the confidentiality of individuals
d'agnosed with any of t.h,e less frequently occurring cancers.
The Polsson model was used to assess the probability that chance alone
could explain a given increase or decrease in the observed number of cancer
cases relative to the expected nutter (1). If the probability was 0.025 or
less for any cancer site, it was considered to be a statistically significant
excess or deficit.
Results
For all cancer sites ccabined, the incidence of cancer for both sexes
together In the study area was similar to the number expected: 178 cases were
-------
- 4 -
observed and 182 were expected. In men, 82 cases were observed and 89 were
expected. In women, 96 cases were observed and 83 were expected. Although
the total number of observed cases 1s higher than expected In women, none of
the observed numbers of cases were significantly different than the expected
numbers. These results and those reported below are summarized 1n the Table.
The sites of cancer most commonly diagnosed 1n men were lung, male
reproductive (Including prostate and testls), and colo-rectal. None of the
observed numbers of cases were significantly different than the expected
numbers. Specifically, 18 cases of lung cancer were observed while 19 were
expected. Fourteen cases of colo-rectal cancer were observed, while 15 were
expected. Eight cases of male reproductive cancer were observed, and 15 were
expected.
The sites of cancer most co.inonly diagnosed among women were breast,
female reproductive, and colo-rectal. None of the observed numbers were
significantly different from the expected numbers of cases. Twenty-seven
cases of breast cancer .e-e observed and 22 were expected. Fifteen cases of
reproductive cancer were observed, and 12 were expected. Seventeen cases of
cs^o-rectal cancer «e'e Deserved while 14 were expected.
Discussion
In drawing conclusions from these data, two aspects of the statistical method
need to be. addressed. First, since there were at least 38 tests of
significance, it was anticipated tnat one or two results might appear statis-
tically significant e.en though the differences between observed and expected
raters were due entirely to random fluctuations in the data. None of the
tests of significance performed for this investigation indicated statistically
significant ercesses or deficits.
-------
- 5 -
The second aspect 1s the power of the statistical test, that 1s, the
probability that a true departure from the expected number can be detected by
significance testing. The power of a test varies with the number of cases
expected. For example, using the statistical test described above, the
probability of detecting a doubling 1n cancer Incidence over the expected
value will be 90 percent or higher when the expected number 1s at least 16.
In the study area, the power of detecting a doubling was high for overall
cancer Incidence and cancer Incidence by sex. It was also high for detecting .
a doubling of cases of male lung cancer and female breast cancer.
Furthermore, It Is possible that by extending the study area beyond a
neighborhood or other small area, the effect of a cancer excess has been
diluted. However, a neighborhood study could not be done because census data
describing the neighborhood si:e by age and sex are not available. In addi-
tion, the number of cases observed would be too small to be able to detect a
reasonable and statistically significant increase in cancer incidence should
one actually exist. T^e Question of statistical power, as discussed above,
becomes such a :-er'cus ': mi ration trat the investigation cf cancer incidence
in small areas can not be expected to yield findings that are meaningful or
responsive to community concern.
And finally, the latency per'od between the time of exposure and the onset
of clinically-recognizable disease for most adult cancers is generally between
10 and 20 years. Specific cancers may vary somewhat in the length of the'
latency period, but generally speaking, recent exposures, tf^at 1s exposure In
the last 10 years, can not be expected to be associated with current cancer
incidence. Exposures of any type can only be expected to affect cancer
incidence following a reasonably
-------
- 6 -
Conclusion
The total Incidence and the site-specific Incidence 1n Census Tracts 106
and 107 1n Ph111pstown were similar to the expected Incidence based on rates
for similar areas 1n upstate New York. The small deviations seen between the
observed number of people with cancer and the number expected based on the
population standard rates are within the range which occurs by chance when
comparing a single community with a large population.
. The requestor mentioned a concern about cadmium. Cadmium has been shown
to be carcinogenic 1n animal studies and 1n occupational studies of humans.
The two organs known to be affected are lung and prostate (2). The mode of
transmission reported in the human studies was Inhalation of cadmium or
cadmium compound dust. In the study area, the observed number of lung cancer
cases was not different from trie expected number in either men or women. The
observed Dumber of prostate cance" was 'ewer than the number expected, but not
so
-------
- 7 -
estimates attribute only 5 percent of cancer deaths to the physical
environment, 1n other words geophysical factors and pollution. Thirty percent
of cancer mortality can be attributed to smoking, 35 percent to diet, 3
percent to alcohol, 7 percent to sexual and reproductive factors, and 4
percent to occupational exposures (4). It Is Important to note therefore,
that any possible risk associated with the environment would most likely only
have a small effect on cancer mortality 1n an area relative to the effect of
tobacco.
It Is Important to realize that many cancers can be effectively treated If
they are diagnosed in their early stages. Screening for cancers of the
breast, cervix, rectum, colon, and prostate, for example, helps to Identify
these diseases before the onset of symptoms and at a time when they are
usually the most curable. Everyone should visit their physician regularly for
a cancer-related checkup.
References
1. Molina, E.C. Poison's E«por.ent:al Binomial Limit. Huntington, NY:
Robert E. Krleger Co., 1973.
2. Scnottenfeld 0 and Fra^meni JF. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention.
Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1982.
3. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures. New York: American
Cancer Society, 1985.
4. Ooll R. and Peto R. The Causes of Cancer. Oxford: Oxford University.
Press, 1981.
-------
Observed and Expected Numbers of Cancer Cases
1976 - 1982 By Site and Sex
Census Tract.5106 and 107 1n Ph111pstown
New York State Cancer Registry
Site (ICO-9)a Males Females
Observed Expectedb»c Observed Expectedb-c
A11 Sites (140-208) 82d 89 96d 83
Oral (140-149) 63 02
Colon and Rectum 14 15 17 14
(153-154)
Other Digestive Organs 56 85
(Stomach,liver.pancreas)
(151,155,157)
Lung (162) 18 19 88
Breast (174) __ _ 27 22
Female Reproductive 15 12
(uterus,cervix,ovary)
(179,180,182,183)
Male Reproductive 8 15
(prostate, testls)
(185,186)
Urinary Tract 99 44
(bladder, kidney)
(188,189)
Le-jkemia and •:/I*p>':r.a 66 75
(200-202,204-208)
Other (Including, among 16 14 10 12
others, melanoma (172)
brain (191), th/ro^d
(193))
a Classification of site was done using the International Classification of
Disease 9th edition.
b Expected number derived by applying age-sex-specific rates for New York
State, excluding New York City, to the 1980 population of Census Tracts
106 and 107 1n Putnam County.
c Expected numbers may not add to total due to rounding.
d Hales Include 2 cases with an unknown address; females include 4 cases
with unknown addresses.
------- |