United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROO/R03-S8/046
March 1988
Superfund
Record of Decision:
New CasUe Steel, DE
-------
tSft272 . 1ft1
IEPORT DOCUMENTATION II. REPORT NO.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R03-88/046
4. Title Ind Subtitle
. SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
New Castle steel, DE
F~ Remedial Action - Final
2.
3. Recipient's Ace..llon No.
5. Report Olte
03/31/88
..
'7. AI!II8I'{I)
8. Performin. O'llnl%ltlon Rept. No. ----
...
9. ...rforml/18 OrpnlZltlon Nlme Ind Add,..s
10. Project/Tllk/Work Unit No.
-- --.
--
u. Contract(C) or Grlnt(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsorln. OrpniZltlon Nlme Ind Add,..s
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type 0' Report .. Period COvered
Agency
800/000
14.
15. Supplementlry Not..
I" Ab8tr8ct (Umlt: 200 -nil)
The New Castle Steel site (NCS) is a 3-acre disposal dump, located in New castle,
Delaware. The site is divided into two parts by a city drainage channel. One portion
of the site, the inactive disposal area, occupies 1.3 acresJ and the active area
occupies 1.7 acres. Since operations began in 1907, solid waste generated by the Deemer
Steel company (DSC), located immediately across the NCS site, was piled and periodi~ally
iread over the surface of the disposal areas. The waste consisted primarily of black
which may contain small quantities of bentonite and corn flour. Approximately,
o yd3 or 2,430 tons of black sand were generated each year. Other waste materials
were sent to the disposal areas and mixed with black sand. These materials included:
slag, coke, iron oxide, fine sand dust, and metal scrap. Between 1973 and
1980, electric furnace dust was generated at the rate of 9.6 tons per year. This dust
was mixed with black sand and spread over the active waste area. The adoption of the
Delaware Regulations governing hazardous waste in November 1980 identified the electric
furnace dust and any mixture of this material with solid waste as a RCRA listed
hazardous waste (waste number K06l). EPA subsequently changed the definition of
K06l, and none of the waste from DSC operations would qualify as a listed hazardous
waste. In December 1980, the electric furnace dust was found to be EP-toxic for
(See Attached Sheet)
-
17. Document Analysis I. Dncrlptora
Record of Decision
New Castle Steel, DE
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media~ sw
GP.~~~~IS (arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel)
c. COSATI FIeld/Group
1'-"lIabllity Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
21. No. of Pales
31
--
20. Security Class (ThIs Pa.e)
None
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.11)
$ee Instructions on Reverse
omONAL FOItM 272 (~77)
(Formerly NTI~35)
Department of Commerce
-------
-EPA/ROD/R03-88/046
NAM8Castle steel, DE
F.... Remedial Action - Final
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
cadmium, chromium, and lead. A June 1984 hydrogeological study reported the thickness
of wastes in the fill section ranged from 8 to 13 feet, and the average thickness was
approximately 10 feet. Wastes were placed over predominantly unconsolidated marsh
sediments, which are underlain by approximately 50 feet of low-permeability clays. The
uppermost Potomac aquifer, an important drinking water source, lies about 70 feet below
the site, and is protected by the low-permeability clays. An Endangerment Assessment
(EA) was prepared based on the data collected from the samples in January 1987. The EPA
concluded that no significant risk to human health and the environment could be
attributed to the site. Contaminant screening identified five indicator chemicals.
They include: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel.
The selected remedial action for this site is no further action. EPA will monitor
surface wastes for lead until the site is deleted from the National Priorities List
(NPL) and closed under the State closure law. There is no capital cost or O&M
associated with this remedial action.
-------
arati«»flae the Record of Decision
Site Name and Location
New Castle Steel Site
City of New Castle
New Castle County, Delaware
Statement of Purpose
This decision document represents the selected remedial action for this site
developed in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA* and to the extent
practicable, the National Contingency Plan.
The State of Delaware has concurred on the selected remedy.
Statement of Basis
This decision is based upon the administrative record. The attached index
identifies the items which comprise the administrative record.
Description of Selected Remedy
Based on the current conditions at the New Castle Steel Site, I have
determined that no significant risk or threat to public health exists.
therefore, I have determined that no further remedial actions under CERCIA
are required.
EPA will continue to periodically monitor site conditions until the site is
either deleted from the NPL or closed under the State of Delaware Solid Waste
Disposal Regulations and monitoring is included as part of the site closure plan,
DECLARATION
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, and is cost effective. However, because no signi-
ficant risk or threat to public health exists and treatment is impracticable,
this remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a
principle element of the remedy.
SL
DATE II iOanes M. Self7 /)
Regional Administrator
-------
- 2 -
In JallPry 1987, u. S. EPA' s contractor, NUS, collected ,additional was1:Jl
surfac:8 .-w, and sediment samples to characterize the extent of the contantl
nation a~' thw site.
After the c:aapletion of all the sampling, u. S. EPA tasked Versar, Inc. to
wd te an Endangerment Assessment (FA) report to evaluate the maqni tude and
probability of actual or potential threat to public health or welfare or the
envirorment posed by the hazardous substances present at the si te.
Based on the evaluation of all available information and data on the New
Castle Steel site, it was determined that there exists no siCJnific:ant threat
to h~ heal th and the envirorment. 'ft1is is supported by the review of the
site's history and operations, an evaluation of the envirOl1l8ntal setting and the
data collected in the studies of the site.
Site Location and Description
The New Castle Steel Site is a 3-acre disposal dunp located in an area of
New Castle, Delaware. The si te racei ved foundry wastes fraa the DII8DK Steel
Catq;8ny which is located inInIIdiately across the ~ site. 'the N8W Castl. Steel
Site is divided into two paKts by a city drainaqe channel. ()w portion of the ,
site, the inactive disposal area, oc:c:upies 1.39 acres and the active area oc:cupies
1.75 acres. Primary ac:c:ess to the two disposal areas is through locked gates -
facing Ninth Street (See figure 2).
The New Castle Steel Site is located west of the City's business district
and about 2""" feet Northeast of the property near Washington Avenue and Gra~
Street. In the direction of the river, near Seventh Street and South of the
Penn Central tracks, the area is occupied by light industry. ~st of this
industrial area is situated on filled land and low marshy ground which lies
further South towsrds the ri ver .
Marshy grounds surrounds the disposal area on three sides and supports a
grass and reed vegetation. The surface of the disposal area appears to be
about 1" feet higher than original grade.
Site History
Since operations beq\m in 1997, solid waste generated by the plant has been
piled and periodically spread over the surface of two disposal areas across the
street frc:a.tbe DHto8r Steel Canpany. The waste consisted primarily of black
sand, whic:b';.i. non-rec:laimable portion of sand tN)lds used in steel casting.
The black-:- 8Id may contain small quanti ties of bentonite or co~ flour which are
uses as "blnden- to allow the tN)lds to be focn8d. About 1899 cubic yards or
243" tons of black sand were generated each year. Other waste materials sent
to the disposal areas and mixed with black sand included slag, coke fran the old
furnace operation, iron oxide scale fran heat treatment, fine sand dust fran the
blasting roan baghouse, and metal serap.
In 1956, an electric furnace was put into operation, and in May 1973, a
collection system and bag house for pollution control dust fran the furnace was
-------
- 3 -
installed. Electric furnace dust has been generated at a rate of 9.6 tons per
year, bet1111t 1973 and 198(1. 'ft'1is dust was mixed wi t." black sand and spread over
the acti'le.-ate area. . .
with' the adoption of the Delawre Regulations Governing Hazardous Waste in
November 1981, the electric furnace dust and any mixture of this material with
sol id waste was defined as a tCRA listed hazardous waste (wsts n\lDber d61).
'ft'1is category included "emission control dust/sludge frail the production of steel
in electric furnaces." The basis for listing materials frail this source is the
concentrations of lead, caciDi\ll and chra'fti\l'll which are often found in the wastes.
EPA subsequently changed the definition of KHl to include only "snission
control dust/sludge fran the primary prcx!UC1:ion of steel in electric furnaces."
As a result of this change, none of the wastes frail O8IID8r's Steel operations
would quali fy as a listed hazardous waste. The hazardoU8/t1X\hazardous status of
the waste materials under tCRA regulations would be detemined solely on the basis
of their characteristics.
In DecEmber 198(1, the electric furnace dust was found to be EP toxic for
cadi\D, chrani\D, and lead. Prior to receiving these analytical results, OMID8r
began recycling the electric furnace dust back into the furnac:8 for _tals recovery.
Since that time, no electric furnace waste has been taken to the disposal ar~s.
-
on March 17, 1982, waste and surface water samples were collected and analyzed
as part of a site inspection and a toxicological assessment of probable impacts.
Subsequently, the site was placed on the CER:tA NatiQnal Priorities List, which
required further investigation and made them a. potential candidate for remedial
action under Superfund. I
In June 1983, Deemer contracted Earth Data to prepare and implement plans
for a hydrogeological investigation of the site. The plan was submitted to the
Solid Waste Management Branch of DNREC on July 28, 1983. The objectives and
details of the plan were refined in discussions wi~~ DNREC during september 1983.
In December 1983, an agreenent between DeEmer and CNR!X: established a three phase
program of actions. Phase I was the implenentation of a ground water [tOnitoring
plan (hydrogeological study) which was to incll.de only the shallow saturated zone.
The hydrogeologi~l report was to be su1:mitted by JUly 3, 1984. Phase II included
DNREX: review of the report and rec;~.,,,.ud1dations to either pursue monitoring and
investigation of the deeper Potaaac: Aquifer, and/or implement a landfill managEment
program under Phase III. 'l'he landfill management program would require caupliance
with applicable regulations for hazardous waste facilities, and could allow con-
tinued \J48.of the site under a Solid Waste Industrial Landfill pemit.
"
on ~ 29, 1984, Earth Data sutmitted a canpleted hydrogeological study to
EPA and the State for their review. AccOrding to the hydrogeological report
prepared by Earth Data, the thickness of wastes deposited in the fill section
ranged from 8 to 13 feet, and the average thickness was approximately 1(1 feet.
Wastes were placed over predaninantly unconsolidated marsh sedin8nts, which are
I.mderlain by about 50 feet of low-pecneability clays. 'l'he uppemost Potaaac
-------
- 4 -
Aquifer, which is an imp'rtant drinking water source, about 79 feet bel~w the
site, is protected by the low permeability.
aaMdon the presence of the confining clay layer and recent laborator~
analyses' of the fill (dunp) W!stes, the State of Delaware proposed on Januar~2,
1985, that the New Castle Steel site be deleted fraft the NPL.
In 1986, Deemer Steel Canpany closed their plant down due to financial hard-
ship. In January 1987, U. S. EPA's contractor NUS collected additional waste,
surface water and sediment samples to characterim the extent of the contamination
at the site.
After the completion of all sampling and analyses, the data was evaluated by
the EPA' s contractor versar, Inc. in the Engang8l8\t Assessment (FA) report.
The Endangerment Assessm8l1t characterized the l'ft89r1itude and probability of actual
or potential harm to public health or welfare, or the envirorment by threatened
or actual releases of hazardous substances fraft the New Castle Steel Site. The
FA process analyzed the expected envirornental fate and transport of indicator
chemicals identified through contaminant screening, and esti:uated potential
routes and extent of exposures.
Based on the evaluation of all available infoauation and data on the New
Castle Steel Site, it was detecnined that there exists no significant risks to
hunan health and the enviroment.
Permit and Regulatory History
Deemer Steel had been notified by the State of several violations in
connection with the disposal of solid waste at the site. 'lb!se included
violations of the following sections of Delaware Regulations Governing Hazat,-
Waste:
Section 265.253 (a)--cover must be provided to control wind dispersal
Section 265.253 (b) -an impermeable base must be provided
Section 265.1--piles must be protected fraft run-on
In addition, Deener Steel had been notified of the following violations:
- operating.a hazardous waste facility without receipt of interim status
for 1 nonth after the Regulations Goveming Hazardous Waste were praftul tatee
- Operating without a permit fraft 1974 to 1989--S8ction 7.93 (g) of the
D8J.awre Solid waste Disposal Regulatins.
- Operating a disposal site for non-hazardous waste wi ~ut a permit.
In [)eced)er 1983, an agreement between Deener and J:NR!X: established a three
phase program of actions in order to address past violations. Phase I was the
implementation of a ground water monitoring plan. Phase II included r:NREX: review
of the report and r~,.,.nmtions to either pursue m:>ni toring and investigation of
the deeper ~tamac Aquifer, and/or implement a landfill manage:nent program under
Phase I II .
-------
- 5 -
Community Relations
Th8 pdf8ued alternative for the New castle Steel Site was published in
the Wilmin;tat' NMJ8 Journal papers on March 8, 1988. A public meeting was
held on M8I:dt- 17, 1988. 'ftw only responses at the meeting about the site
concerned the use of the site after it was delisted. 'l1'Mt responses are sho~
in the tran8Cript of the meeting attached to this R)O. 'lhe State replied
that the s1 te would be closed up under the Solid wst:e regulations requiring
the owner to cap the si te. 'l1'Mt statement was in response to Jeff Mack,
Delaware State Representative frcm New Castle County.
No telephone calls or written carmunication in response to the public
meeting or advertissnent have been received. Representative Mack sent a
follow-up letter of his meeting ~R,,~ot to the State of Delaware. His meeting
CQIII.ent was adequately responded to in the transcript.
Geoloqy
The site is located on the Atlantic Coastal Piara;"'a-thick wedge of uncon-
sol idated sediments of Cretaceous to ()1arternary age. '1bI sedim8ntary wedge is
thinnest near the fall line, about 4S miles north of New Castle, where it is in
contact wi th the outcrop area of crystalline bedrock c:aD{Zising the Appalachian
pieanont Province. '1bI coastal plain sediments becaoe thick8r toward the
southeast and are 2499 feet thick in southeast New castle County.
Bedrock lies at a depth of between 599 and 6"9 feet below the site. In
northeastern New castle County, sediments of the POtcmac: Fotmat10n overlie bed-
rock and are mantled by a thin layer of Pleistocene and Qarterary sediments. The
Potanac Formation was deposited by streams during early to late Cretaceous time,
and consists of variegated clay and silt with interbedded sands. The Pleistocene
and Quarterary sediments (Columbia Formation) overlie the POtomac Formation. The
Columbia sediments were deposited by rivers fed by melting glaciers to the north
and are mostly poorly sorted sands, gravels, silts and clays.
Hydrogeoloqy
Petmeable sand layers in the Potanac Formation are an important source of
water for municipalities and industries in the New castle area. The Potanac
aquifer consists of many separate sand aquifers with variable degrees of hydrau-
lic interconnection. 'l1'MtS8 aquifers are highly variable in hydraulic character-
istics. The vertical hydraulic conductivities of the confining layers separating
the sands have ~rSJJred in few :!5eS, and are between the low peJ:meabi 1 i ty
values of 2.9 x anls and 1 x 19- cm/s.
Recharij. to' the Potanac aquifer is primarily through the ovet1ying Col\1tlbia
Formation. D8S*.alng on local stratigraphy, the Co1\Dbia and Potomac aquifers
may be isolated or function as a single hydrologic unit.
In order to detemaine the relationship between the POtcmac: and Col\lli)ia
aquifers the drilling logs fran the four rtl)nitoring wells and test holes were
recorded and interpreted. 'ftw well logs show that sandy and silty sediments are
1" feet or less thick west of the site, and are underlain by Potanac clays to a
depth of 55 or 69 feet. Below this depth, sand aquifers alternate with layers
-------
- 6 -
of clay OJ: sandy clay. Fast and northeast of the site Col\lD:)ia sediments may
35 to 61 feet: thick in places and underlain by Potanac clays to a depth of appiel'"i-
mately 91 &8t. Thus it appears that about 39 to 59 feet of clay overlies the
uppermost Potal8c; aquifer: in the area wi thin one mile radius of the De&DeJ: Steel
Si te. Neal: the Deemer: disposal area, the uppermost Potaaac aquifer would be
expected at a depth of about 79 feet and should be overlain by about 51 feet of
low pecneabilit:j clays.
Remedial S
'n'1e Remedial Scrnpling Investigation consisted of two phases. A hydJ:ogeo-
logical study was conducted by Farth Data in 1984 who was hired by the responsible
party DeEmer Steel. 'n'1is study was followed by an analytical sampling in 1987 to
detemine the impact of the waste mateJ:ial caused by the other transnission routes
including soils, air and surface waters. An endangermant as&eSSll8nt (FA) based
on the canplete sampling results of the two studies was made by Versar: Inc. who
was hired by the Envirorrnental Protection Agency. The FA concluded that no
significant risk to human health or the envirorrnent could be attributed to the
site. The results of the studies are suamarized in the following paragJ:aphs:
A.
waste ChuacteritA~ion .
In May 1984 Earth Data Inc. collected waste sanples fraa six excavated pits-
at three different depths. 'n'1e near-surface sanples were taken between 1.5 and
3. 9 feet fran the ground surface, the intetmediate depth samples ranged fraa
5." to 6.8 feet, and the deep samples ranged fran 8.5 to 13.9 feet. Near surf~
samples were taken at two additional locations, (See Figure 3).
The analytical method employed was the EP (Extraction Procedure) toxicit:j
test as described in 4" CFR 261, Appendix II and the canparable Delaware Regu-
lations. The analysis was expanded to include the entire list of 18 metals. Two
composite samples were prepared, fran both active and inactive areas. The analy-
tical results for the two composite samples are summarized in Table 1. Concen-
trations of the eight metals used to define the characteristic of EP toxicit:j are
all between tWo and three orders of magnitude lower than the established limits
for EPA toxicit:j (See Table 1). en the basis of the analyses, it was concluded
that the fill material in both ~reas is not considered EP toxic.
In Januuy 1987, the !lJS Corporation conducted waste sampling at the si te to
characteri_- the air m1gJ:ation potential of lead in the soil. A total of eight
samples wax. tak8n for use in the Cowherd model. 'n'1is model is used to assess
the health:-eU8cts of airborne constituents fraa soil on a site.", The airborne
concentratica determined frau the IOOdel was caupared to a reference level. The
reference levaJ: is that level for non-carcinogenic consti tuen~ below which
there is no toxic effects. The exposure l~vels was 1.96 x 1S- ng/kg/day
canpared to a reference level of 4.3 x 1S- ng!kg/day. The observed level
was well under the reference indicating no toxic levels frau the airborne lead.
-------
- 7 -
A total of 21 samples were obtained fran seven test pits (see figure 4,
Table 2 and 3) to determine the potential for toxic effects fran ingestion.
'l1'1e levels for caciDi\D, chrani\D and nickel were ~red to a reference level
since the ingestion effects are not carcinogenic. The worst-case asses....,t
for these metals is s\mMrized below:
Metal
Exposure Isvel
mg/kC}/day
3.3 x lr;
3.4 x lr3
1.5 x lrr 5
6.53 x lr
Reference Level
aq!kg/day
2.9 x lr~
5.1 x lr3
1.4 x lr2
1.S x lr
eaanium
Chrani\D
Lead
Nickel
These levels do not indicate any problem for public health; these wre
determined as worst-case values, if the most probable case was used, the
exposure levels would be much lower. .
Arsenic was not included in the above list because it is considered a
carcinoqen. The risk d~ to ingestion exposure for using the highest observed
concentration based on a single sediment sample was ~lculated to be 2.94 x 1;-5...
Average concentrations of arsenic found on site are within ranges of arsenic
found in natural soil.
. These estimates were based on a no-action remedial response and asS\.lDed
that the fill area will remain uncovered for seventy years. The assessnent of'
exposure and risk were complted conservatively so any potential risk to human
health would be identified.
The total number of samples obtained during the investigation was forty-
eight waste and sediment samples, which were analyzed for inorganic constituents,
five of these samples were oomposited and analyzed for organic constitutes.
B.
Hydrog~logica3:._Investis.ation
During the Spring, 1984 hyarogeoloqical investigation conducted by Farth
Data, Inc., four monitoring wells were installed in the Col\mt)ia Formation (See
Figure 1). After the installation, the monitoring wells were developed to assure
an adequate fiowfor sq»ling purposes. one-half inch pieZCXDeters were installed
at 5 locat1an8 shotm in Figure 2. The piezaueters were used to qather additional
water-level infomation, but not used for collecting ground water ~les.
During the investigation, water level measurements were taken fran the monitor-
ing well locations and the piezaaeters. The water level contour map was constructed
based on the water level measurements. It appears that the flow in the shallow
-------
- 8 -
saturated ... is strongly influenced by the drainaqe c:hann81 separating the
inactive aDII"active dispoMl areas. !'low directions are t:owrd the c::hannel wi1=l'
a sOutherlY'n-,.o{I08I1t of flow near the southern margin of the f111 adjacent to
the marsh. MJch of the ground water in the shallow flow systG b8nHth the site
is likely to discharge into the channel and flow south8ut to8rd the marsh and
eventually into the marshy area bordering t:h8 fill on t:h8 south. Discharge of
ground water flowing beneath the 8i te into the drail18CJ8 ditch to the west or
into the marshy area to the east is likely to be minimal.
I)1ring the hydrogeological investigation, a n\I'IIber of shallow wll and test
borings W8re drilled. Earth Data, Inc., obtair8d wll and test hole drilling logs
near New Castle fran the fil.. of the Dltla_re GIological &Jr:vwy. Bu8d on the
existing well and test hole drilling log8, it was deteaair8d that low peDD88bility
clays underlie the shallow aquifer at a depth of 15 to 21 f8et below the surface.
These clays have low vertical hydraulic conductiviti.. bu8d on pmlish8d reports.
Awroximately, 5" feet of clays are estimated to separate the shallow aquifer frCID
the upper !'I¥Jst confined POtanac aquifer beneath the site. (See !'igure 5 and 6).
Ground water samples were obtained frCID each of the four 1IIX1i toring wll. and
at two of the surface water gauging stations in May, 1984. Analysis of ground _ter
unples was done for all of the Group 1,2 and 3 par2lD8ter. a8 specified und8r J:.lawre
Regulations Governing Hazardous Waste, Section 265.92 (6), with the exception of-the
pesticide parameters listed under Group '1. These 'parll'D8t8rs, along with the,
analytical results for the six samples are shown in Table 4.
Ground water in the shallow saturated zone is generally good in quali ty . -
on the analysis of samples fran !'I¥Jnitoring wells, the ground water beneath the' r
disposal areas would meet !'I¥Jst criteria for drinking water except for moderately 19h
levels of iron and manganese. The two metals, in the concentrations reported, are
not of concern with regard to toxicity. The concentrations of other constituents,
including lead, caanium and chranium, are well below the levels established as
MaXlmun Contaminant Levels (l'CLs) under the Safe Drinking water Act.
c.
Surface Water and ~~~ .Invest~ga~i~
I)1ring the Sprint;, 1984, investigation perfoJ:1D8d by Earth'Data, Inc. two surface
water samples were taken at b«J locations in the city drainage ditch. The analytical
results are showI in Table 4.
The only pullD8t8r above the 1tni:)i8nt water Qality Criteria found in the Marsh'
area was l8k The other _tals used as indicators for conbninants of concern
included ar88Iic, chrClDi\ll, nickel and cacDi\D. The arS8nic, chmai\D and nickel
were below all, ~ and chronic ambient water quality criteria while adDi\D was
below the acute and not significantly different than the chronic criteria.
In January, 1987, NUS Corporation took U surface water ~lea at the
New Castle Steel Site (See Figure 7). '1W of the eleven ~l- taken were the
background 5Cq)les. The analytical results are shcM\ in Table 5. Three of the nine
downstrean ~les exceeded U.S. EPA 1I!i)ient Water Qality Criteria (»Q:) for lead
and eight of the nine samples excaeded the l0W8St chronic level. for water of tD8di\D
-------
- 9 -
hardnea... Tb8 b8c:kground ~18S for lead also exceeded U.S. EPA AWrJ:. Th8
highllSt 1885 8IIIIPl- wre contaminated wi th sediment according to the field
inv..tiga~iOft report of tlJS. Although nickel and hexavalent c:tu:aD.i\D caapounds
exhibi t appreciable solubility in water, all nickel c:oncentrationa in saaples
fran locations near or dotnJE'adient of the site are within U.S. EPA »Q::.
A caapadson of _1ec:t8d _tal contaminants with Applicable or Relevant and
A~ropriate Requiren81ts (ARARII) for groundwater ani! surface water is shown
in Table 7.
In January, 1987, a total of 21 soil ani! sediment saq»les fran off site
locations were analyzed for total tll8tals. '1'h8 off-site locations included back-
ground locations not materially affected by the site, ani! locations I'*ar to the
site or topographically downgradient from NIW Castle St:88l Site.
For samples fran the do\1lngradient areas ani! background locations, analyti-
cal data (total metals) were ~iled for arsenic (As), c:acDi\D (Cd), c:tu:aaiaa
(cr), lead (Pb), and nickel (Ni).
Arsenic concentrationa in saq»les fran downgradient areu (axeas where
direct contact exposures ar. most likely to occur owing to the proximity of the
marsh and the Delaware River), range fran juat abov. the. 4etec:tion limit to -42
m;/kg, but ranges fran 1 to 5" PPD (See Figure ar:- .
The caani\.D concentrations range fran below the detection limit to 7 m;/k9,
and the mean' concentration is 2.59 m;/kg, lower than the average value for cad-
mium at background locations, 4.34 tIIJ/kg. COncentrations of c:acDi\D in soil
range from "."1 to 7 ppm and generally average about ".15 PPD (see Figure 9).
Chromium concentrations in downgradient areas were generally higher in
concentration caupared to arsenic and caani\.D, from 11 to 74 tIIJ/kg, and average
32.45 !Ig/kg of soil. Typical soil chrani\D concentrations may range fran 2" to
1"" ppm (See Figure 1").
Lead concentrations in the soil and sediments have the broadest range and
are highest. Lead concentrations range fran 21 to 3,26" ag/1c9 and average
419.64 m;/1c9. '1'he- CaIIplt:8C1 standard deviation of 955.29 TtIJ/kg is notably high,
suggesting that the muiDua value of 3,261 ag/1o; obtain8S at the Route 9 culvert
is an outlier:. urb8D 80118 ~y have lead concentrations ranging fran 151
to 3'" t'II)/1IJ, ani! 188d f8'/ exC88d 2,918 ag/1o; of soil near roadsides. These
high l~ B. tarCJ81ya result of the ext:8n8ive use of leaded gasolines and
the relati" iDlaJil1ty of lead in sedim8nts (See Figure 11).
.,.
Nick81 CCI'....i1uations range fran 11 to 141 1IIJ/k9, ani! the average nickel
c:onc:entration on so11 and sedilll8nt is 44.73 111)/10;. Nickel concentrations in
soil generally average 41-88 PPD (See Figure 12).
It should be noted that in several instanceS, "backgroundw concentration
values for arsenic, c:achiaa, chrani\D, lead and nickel exceed "d~adient"
values, indicating other source areas significantly contributed to these
enviromental concentrations (See Table 6).
-------
- 1" -
~ h8~~t:
AftK th8 campletion of the January, 1987 sampling ;.rfotn8d by WS Corporation,
u.s. EPA tasked ~rsar, Inc. to write an EndangeJ:ll8tt As8.w-st (FA) report to .
evaluate the magnitude and probability of actual or potential harm to ~lic health
or wlfare, or the envirOl'll8nt posed by the hazardoua 8Ub8tanceS pr8Mnt at the site.
The FA process analyzes the ex~ envirOlll8fttal fate and transport of
indicator ch8Dicals identified throuqh conbDinant screening, to estimate potential
routes and extent of exposur... Each indicator chIaIical is further evaluated for
its toxicological pro;.rties, and based on estimated <50- incurred, relative dsk
is c::aI'IP1ted. The following represents a St--ry of the major findings of this teport:
- tUnerous organic and inorqanic calp)unds were id8ntified at the N8w Castle
Steel Site. COntaminant screening identified five indicator c:b8Dicals which
tepresent conbDinants of primary concem frOll a ~lic and envirOlll81tal
health standpoint. These contaminants wre arsenic, cacDium, c:hrOlDium,
lead, and nickal.
- Based on the available data, fate and transport studi- indicate that
each of the contaminants of concem are ac!aorbed to an appreciable extant
by soil particles and therefore dcminate8 its tDOV8D8nt in the environDlnt.
'1'«) exposure toutes wete identified: inhalation of lead-c:ontaDinated
particulates emitted fran the active disposal area of the site; and ~
contact of contaminated surface water, soil, and sediment in drainage~
fran the site and in the topographically lowr marsh ateas.
- Potential health ds1cs were identified for inqestion exposure to lead
(noncatcinogen) and arsenic (catcinogen) using the highest observed con-
centtations.
- sane high lead concentrations were detected in surface water samples
coliected on the site. The highest values were found in samples that
were unf il tered and observed to have sediD8nt. The clear samples were
slightly abOve the l~t water quality criteria (chronic) for water
with a harm.u of 1"8 l1l;I/1. The values in the tI8rsh are not signifi-
cantly highK and can be partially attributed to the urban envitoment
aqJ tidal. influx frOll the d ver . The values of clMr samples fraa the
&1IK8b did not e1flC88d acute water quality valu..
. ~
- 'ft8- only par_t8r of concem in the wetland Sllllples was lead.
Sc:II8.lMd in surface water ~les near the site eXCMded EPAls
Jrnbient water QJality Criteria (acute) for fr88h water on site and
may be adversely impIIc:ting a localized wt1aDd8 arM. There is no
evidence to link the levels of lead in the wet1and8 to the site.
Backqround valU88 ta1c8n upJradimt of the site show higher levels
than the lead values in the marshlw. '1'h8 levels of lead in the
wetlands were increased by many other factors in addition to the
-------
- 11 -
site. '1be88 include drainage fraa the urban area, total infl"*1Cl!S
in. the arsh, and runoff frcm other sites including roads and another
fOundry in the arM. EPA will periodically ftl)nitor the site conditions
until the sit. is deleted fraa the National Prioriti.. List or until
the site is closed under the State of Dltlawr.'s SOlid Naste
Disposal R8gUlations.
- Sa18 lead in surface water S8IIpl- collec:t8d n&J: the site exceeded
EPA's Ambient water Quality Criteria (acute) for fresh water, and
may be adversely imp8cting a localized W8tland8 area.
- When background conc.w\trations and waste analyses W8re c:cqBred with
remaining envirornental samples, it is evident that other contamin-
ant sources were contributing to the environaental concentrations
found.
- Virtually all concentrations of arsenic, c:acDi\ID, c:hrcmi\D, .1881, and nickel
were wi thin typical .concentration ranges found in urban, industrialized
settings.
-
Bases on an evaluation of all available infoz:mation and data on the NIW castle
Steel Site, there exists no significant threat to tuDan health. This supported on
a canprehensible review of the site's history and operations, an evaluation of
the site's enviromental setting, recent waste analyses perfoDC8d on material
known to have been disposed at the site, and finally, on analytical data collected
in January 1987, which was used to assess any exposure hazards present.
COM:LUSION
- .
A.
Rec:annended Alternative
Based on the conclusions of the Endangerment Assessment prepared by Versar,
Inc., for U. S. EPA, it is rE!C\ollwuaded that no further remedial actions under
CEICIA should be ~.18ll8ftt:ed at the site. U.S. EPA will monitor the surface
waters for lead until the site .is deleted frcm the National Priority List and
closed under the state closure law. A no action alternativ. is the most
reasonable and C08t effective alternative for protection of public health,
welfare and 8IWi~OI1I8\t.. It is r~~ that New Castle Steel Site is
proposed ~ deletion f%CII the National Priorities List.
~
B.
Del8ti~ C?~ N8W Cas~le Steel_Site frcm NPt
"No action" sites are conaidered as oaupletions once the detemination
is made that no further r...sial actions are n8C88ury to be prot8ct:iv. of
public health and the enviror1l81t and the no-action 10) i. approve. once
a site is considered as a oaupletion it beL........ a candidate for deletion
fraa the NPL. '1'he deletion pr0CH8 is separate fraa the 10) action and
involves several steps including public notices and deletion doc:k8t preparation.
-------
- 12 -
cal.tieD: of a site frcn the NPL does not preclude eligibility for
~ub&eq\8lt !UnlS-financed or PRP activities. Section 381.66 (c) (8) of the M:P.
states that PUnd-financed actions may be taken at 5i tes that have been
deleted frcn the NPL if future conditions warrant such actions.
c.
~wcndations OU~id8 the ~ of ~ New C8:8tl. Steel ROD
Once the New Castle Steel Si t8 is deleted fraa the NPL, the State
of Delaware will proceed with a closure of the disposal area in accordance
wi th the Delawre Solid Waste Disposal Regulations. The State will require
the owner of the si t:e to impl8l8ftt such "..Jres u surface drainage controls,
surface capping, and ground wter and surface water lIIXIi toring. SUch tD8UUres
will control wind dispersal, protect piles frcn run-off and monitor the
surface water and ground water for potential cont8ination.
-------
18
.
.
,
\
.
.
.
.
.
/' ."
. .
.'
"
,
~
'.., .
"I
f..~
. . .'.
. .
-------
Figure 2 Disposal Area
I
I
IHOUSINCi
" I
"" SINH'
,
-fp
~ '->1
f\?J"
... .
'.0_00'0-
. .0 .
I:~;- ~ ~ :/
," .. ,-
I ' "~:"" ,
,'- 0 :.l.:, :0,'
- .. .......::.....-.
-::---- I' '- '.
----:--- ------~~.o ~~I
--,..-~::.:...-.-:..:
_--a---~. ." .. -.;.- -
~". ..: ......"... ...... . ~ - :=:--- S(NfI
",:,~. ~o 0 .-': 0,:. "0' "~., .:: ~ ~O~O ~ ---- u-
~.iii':3~~=t=t=r=t=t+
.
/4
II
UIPLOYH
'MatUI6
o
ACHY[
SUE
IlIACI I Vi
Sill
~
~-.-- 0, . -------
~--- - .
. ........ --. .
......' - .-.". .'
... ... '---.. ...' . :
L""--'--'.. . ~
I --
- -._~-,-~ -
...
HOUSIN6
I NOMIII
fAClOIt Il S
-------
~ Ligh
~ CI.
.... 1"'."
... . ... fill I
lIAR...
Cl..
elt
DID.AM IWIIt
.- .-
rm-. - - 8818 8GD'
- - CII8I8 ... -
'11"" -
/'~
-------
6CI.J)
, - - 1J-
. ~ - ~
Cl.7' ---- A U---
*7 ....
18&81 1..... *
.... . ... .. ....
., CI7.
61...'
..."...
.cm
DlLAWAM RM
.- ~
... -- f~- 18 8IIS.I ..
- CII8I.I. .. --..
'/J.7.
""''''
/ lua",
,
-------
ae....
.."...
6C1..'
. .1..
-.. ...
/~
. r --'*-
. ~ . JR-
1.'. C88U8
., ....
18&88 1'-." f.
-- . ... fill ....
... .~ "
DlLAWAM IIYIR
.- i
-_III"" - 81:
- CIII8oI. -.r-M
-------
..Ut
. - lko ...-
. ~. ---
-------
a(-
..,...
4fUI
.c.
,
... C8
0"""
/' 'IAC~
a T ~ A.-
. . - - -
CM. ~ t- .. I
---
...... 1 ~ . - "
... . ... ~ ....
DIU_AM RWD
.- II
----<118 18 ... - -
- c:MBa. - ---
-------
, IU)
MA"S"
. e..
.
... .-.
./'
D8LAWAM IIVIII
.- II)-
.1>.....(- 118 8l1l.I - I8ZII
- Q8B8. .,--
6 Uta t
/:~
-------
TABLE 7
Selected Contaminant ARM Requirements
(Concentrations in ~)
=-=~, SI:IiA teL Surface Water Concentration 0iA Water Quality Criteria
. I for Aquatic Life ~
. . .
Contallinant Hubua Hean Hut-.. Acute OKanic
.
Arsenic 1 - 58 9.6 38 368 IH
CacDi.. 1 18 2.5 2.5 3.9 1.1
OIraai.. 5 58 23.1 182 1788 218
Lead 28 . 58 149.5 668 82 3.2
Footnotes
1. SUrface _ter average represents eleven data points
2. SUrface _tar quality criteria (acute) for lead e~ for tbr. 88Ipl_.
-------
r-..
... ... aIIUID .. ftAIIInI:II, - . l1li. .. --
--- ... CIftnI. I ~
- CaIIU ..... 8111
(,
~---- 111 .1l81li..
C8IIIII - ......
&.888.....
.....,r-- "--'. .... .. c:. c. -- "
u,.U818 -- '.as 1.1 .. I,. ..
..... Me -- - -... 11 .... .. "' .
1M'.... -- a.' 1.. 1.1 . ...
UIIP-"-"" _I" . ... . 111 II
lesu.p'" -.. '.J 1.' 11 'I I.'
IaWi.W - - -.. ... I.' 11 ..1 11.1
'..aUW
,~....- .'... 1.1 ,., ..1 - ".J
IU.
..... a.a ICII lit , a.1 11.1 . 18.1
..... 18&1 ICII .. ... 18 ... - II
r... ...1 -.., 1 1.' 11.1 81.' u.-
.... ...8U8U8 '.11 .... aI." 1II.U ....
S,...... *""8M88 .... I.. B.18 111.17 1'."
M8u88 ...-..... II 11 . US ..
"d&88 ...-..... 0." 1.' ... 1- ..1
-------
WUl
U 1QI1Clft tift AID ,. USVUS rea DIAcrnI
AID ACTnI DISIOSAI. AIIAIl
II. W1'I.I stili. 11ft
MY 21. 1'"
'an_c.1'
"'f~-
CoM:,1-
t888e1.,..
D1.,...,. Ana
Me1.,.
D1.,...l An.
TGw.ie M8eal.
u..aic
"1'1-
Cd111-
ChI'081-
Lead
Nerc\II"Y
S.18ni-
SUvaI'
pAt
5.0 <0.005 <0.005
100.0 <0.1 <0.1
1.0 <0.005 <0.005
5.0 <0.01 <0.01
5.0 <0.02 <0.02
0.2 0.0011 <0.005
1.0 <0.005 <0.00'
5.0 <0.005 <0.005
. <0.5 <0.5
IIA <0.001 <0.001
MA 0.03 0.03
. 0.005 <0.005
. 2.4' 1.55
.-.-:c- 10.0 1.tS
IIA 1.75 0.07
1CA <0.005 <0.005
8IA 0.11' 0 . 295
. 9.2 ...
Oehar Maeal.'
.1_1..
lecyU118
Cob.lc
Co,,. I'
ll'on
KAI\pn8..
Mlcu1
Vanacu'-
Zlnc
~All c~.aft.e1'" <...,c ..) I'8f8nM 18 8111.
L1aic. ..calaltaIIM ...-.. 40 CJI. 2'1.24.
3Maa18l8 C888_CI"aciaa 118ica ...... 8C ..... .._11.-.& fo.. ...
81....... .
-------
DQ In
IYIIL
r ~ U .b...
c' .
.
Cot8N8
.. -- . --
-.
,
,
,
"
,
,
"
..#
...."
.,
.'
,
--.-
.... - .
~.
,..
. '
,
,
"
--..... ..I
.#
,.",.
.#
,"
..
"
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
"
#.
-. .."
I -..-.---
r4, "".1
..,,-
#8
,-
"
,,"
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
..
,
,
,
,
,
,,'
,.
,
.
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
" ~I
.
"
.
,
.
,
,
:MIA
, .
, I
, ,
, :
t :
I :
, I
, ,
I ,
. ,
, :
, ,
I .
. '
, I
.
, ,
, I
. I
.
,
,
il
--
..
n
..
.
. -....u.
r/..
-etrut
.... ..... all
.... .... .....
~ I, ,,,.......
..... ~U8U .f
-tenal --.1Uit, -
"U8. --.... ..
..- .......
.~
,
-------
- - --- I,.
I
C'
~i
.. - _._-
.- . . .
---_.._~
....
.-t..'-"--
.' -
.- ~ .-
,L. ,.'
. .-'
... ,. J '.--
...... @t ,
'.. . ..-
I~.t ~...
'" .00 ,
..e .
. " I f'
.,- t.. .' ~
.." . . .'
......._.....,... I .-,
. -- ' , I;. ': A .'.
, I: ,\,
.""'"'. A I ' ,:1
.0 :w-.R .
(!) , 2 i., ..'
.,...... .. )"'" 'f of
-------
tAiU
torA&. AlSI8IC. CAaImII. CI8aIt1ll. UAD. AID ItCIII.
PIal ACttVI DISPOSAl. AlIA
.. c.vn.I StIlL SIU
Cea'-1-..c c:.._a-8ci-
S..,10 tooc ""'C8cel7 I_AI.. .... -f._e'
08pcb lie s.,1. A8 Cd Cc lit Ii
0-) fooe 1 IIC8 434 1 7.0 41 317 42
)-, fooe 1 .. 435 1 3.0 17 71 12
,-, fooe 1 IICII 4361 ,., '.1 30 144 19
,-, fHe 1 IICI ..0 7.2 '.3 20 23S 17
0-4 fHe 2 IICII 431 4.' '.1 15 207' 21
4-' fooe 2 IICII 432 2.3 5.4 34 214 2'
7-14 fooe 2 IICII 433 3.3 2.5 7.3 n 10
ea.,.oico 3 IICII "1 3.4 4 37.'. 57.3 2'.'
eo.,ooieo 3 IICI .. 0." 2 l' 33.3 l'
0- 5 fooe 3 IICII 421 1 7.7 37 231 35
'-10 fooe 3 IIC8 42' 0." 13 .3.3 40 ".7"-
10- 13 fo.e 3 IICI 430 '.S U II 54 '7
.... coneoaeraci.. 3.23 '.43 37.71 13'.22 12.69
Scandarc& de9tacioa 2.45 3.48 24.4' 100.32 1'. 7t
...1818 coneoauact- 7.2 13 ., 317 61
IUftiaa coecoGeraci- 0.95 2.5 7.3 n 10
lS-.10. IICH 402 ... 11:1 440 an "'U08e. .-.1.. .f IICII 400 .... IICI
436 r..pacci..1,. DufUo8ce ...,1.. u. C.llOCcM ae eM .... locaet....
-------
fAIU 3
tOfAI. watC, CAD111tII. t'18ft111t1ll. &.lAD. AID ItCIII.
... nw:rm DtSfOIAI. AlIA.. .
nv CAfttI IftII. SIft
c..-t-e Coea.ael'aei-
S..,l. f..e WMl'aCOI7 1_Jk8 cft¥ tll8t.he1
De,cb .le 18f1. u " CI' fit 11
C.,..1C. 4 ItCI 401 1 10.4 40.8 134 76.5
0-. tHC . 8ICI ... 4.4 8.1 30 16 52
16-8 fMe 4 IICI 64' 1.0' 7.' J2 53 "
I- 11 fMC 4 IIC8 450 2.' 1.7 43 72 "
0-4 f..c 5 IICI 64' 5.2 '.' .5 40 31
16-8 t..c 5 IICII 646 1.1 4.. 20 13 2'
1-12 f..c 5 IICII ...7 2.' 3.7 10 20 l'
0-4 f..e , . ItCI 642 1.0' 5.3 J1 .2 2.
16-1 f..e 6 IICI 643 J.I 5.7 20 '.7 25
8-10 f..e 6 IICI ... 2.4 5.3 17 1.09 2'
0- 3 f..e 7 lICK 417 1.1 7.0 51 2' 53
3-' f..c 7 IICII 431 1.1 .., IJ 14 27
16-8 fHe 7 JtaI 439 1.05 13 75 18 "
.... cOftClftcI'ac1oa 2.11 7.34 39.60 47.67 42.'6'
Standal'd d8ytacloa 1.46 2.62 23.'2 41.47 20.08
Kaxt8Y8 conc.acl'ac1- 5.2 13 n 134 76.5
K1n18U8 cona.acl'ac1oa 1 3.7 10 9.7 15
-------
f.~
A j
IN 11-1 Dc .-1
o 0
100
ISO
FIGU.. S.
I
ba.ed on ...11
11811 loc"t....
f..~.
G801og1. cco..-.ectlon
log. 8bawD in .,abl. 1.
.bown In Flgur. 1.
8O~laontal acal. I inch. 1000
.1.va~lon. In feet, ..1 datua.
BY'
SO
. ~ 'Iel.toea... and "cen~
~ .""'.t.
. II ,otC88c land.
. 'ot088C Clay.
-------
o
!".o
100
lSO
B
0....,
DIll a..lts..e
...
I
B'
IN la-I
Dc .-1
. ~.
o
so
100
ISO
Dr,
Pletatocene and
8edi8enta
fot088c .anda
PIGU88
"
Geologic c~oaa-aection baaed on well
a"" bocing 100a abown in Yable I.
Mell location. .bawn in Pigu~. 1.
Hociaontal .oal. I incb . 1000 '..t.
al.vation. in f.et, ..1 datua.
~
II
.
aecent
l'ot088C Cl.y.
-------
TULI ~t ualytieal ...alu ,ro. GrchaAd-w.ter ucI Surface-Water S..,l.
a....r .,..1, la, 1.8.
.,
a c in}
.a~.;
..-1.. ..-2 ..-1 ..-. _-1 _-2 Liai'
Ar...I.;.. <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.05
.aria. 0.038 0.03. 0.01' 0.011 1.0
Cadaiua <0.001 <0.001 0.001 < 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.01
Cbro8iu8 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.002 <0.001 0.001 0.05
,1uoride 0.11 0.7' 0.12 0.28 1.~-
Lead 0.003 <0.001 0.021 0.00. 0.01. 0.022 0.05
..ereury <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.00
.Ritrate-. 0.3 1.2 .. 1.0. -'!' 2.0 10.
1.1e"iu8 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.01
<0.001 <0.001 0.003 .
.il..r <0.001 0.05
Cblorid. 12.5 72.0 28.0 '~lS.0
IrOD 0.'3 1.30 2..5 17..0
lIu,.e.. 3.20 2.70 0.7' 3.20
'be"ol. <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
-------
TAIL'
TaTM. ..,..u -.nlS rJI urJCI WlTII
.. CASnJ STaL SlTtl.2
(.., 1)
s... Ie
s... Ie ...... lAM". AI C. Cr .. It
-
0...,....:
CM '1' 3 I a.I a.I II I'
IQ tl. . 13 a.I II - SI
CM tIS S S a.s I.S 18 I'
lOt NO . S a.s a.s I.S I.'
lOt 121 7 S r.s - - .
IQ 121 . S r.s I.S '.3 '.S
CM US t S I.S I.S 7.1 I.'
IQ '37 10 S I.S I.' I.' a..
lOt... 11 38 a.1 I. at .
.... ... a.s D.l I..' U.,
SCIftCllr8 0Iw1"'. 11.0 0.' JI.I 1M.' D.'
.",,- S r.s I.S r.s a.s
...- 38 Z.s 1. - 11.0
Ieca,....".:
IQ IU S a.s I.a II 1.
-IQIQ , . l' JII 7. -
- ".1 '.3 178.' ... I..'
I" ..... ...
....., CrtWt8a
--. .. J.I 1"' . I.
CIW8- -' 1.1 11" 1.1 1.
Is. ,...,. 3-11 fer _18 ,.......
Zs.... - _m'_.. .-IM II"'''''. 'tilt,,, -.....---"
Cftl 8t8It,. ,." _..
3T,,-.I.. ........
'T, '.. 1... c:fW'8'"
------- |