•
Superfund Program
Proposed Plan
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II
Radiation Technology, Inc. Superfund Site
2011
EPA ANNOUNCES PROPOSED PLAN
This Proposed Plan identifies the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) preferred alternative to
address a waste/drum disposal area at the Radiation
Technology, Inc. (RTI) Superfund Site (Site), located in
Morris County, New Jersey. EPA's preferred alternative
is Alternative 2, excavation of drum material with off-
Site disposal and/or treatment.
This Proposed Plan includes summaries of the cleanup
alternatives evaluated for use at the Site. This document
is issued by EPA, the lead agency for Site activities.
EPA is issuing this document as part of its public
participation responsibilities under Section 117(a) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), and
Section 300.435 (c)(2)(ii) of the National Contingency
Plan (NCP). This document summarizes information that
can be found in detail in the Administrative Record file
for this Site. This Proposed Plan is being provided to
inform the public of EPA's preferred remedy, and to
solicit public comments pertaining to the preferred
alternative. The remedy described in this Proposed Plan
is the preferred alternative for the Site. Changes to the
preferred alternative, or a change from the preferred
alternative to another alternative, may be made if public
comments or additional data indicate that such a change
will result in a more appropriate remedial action. The
final decision regarding the selected remedy will be made
after EPA has taken all public comments into
consideration. The State of New Jersey is currently
evaluating EPA's Preferred Alternative in this Proposed
Plan. The public is encouraged to review and comment
on the preferred alternative considered by EPA in this
Proposed Plan.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
EPA and the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) provide information regarding the
remediation of the RTI Site to the public through public
meetings and the Administrative Record file for the Site.
EPA and the State of New Jersey rely on public input to
ensure that the public will have a more comprehensive
MARK YOUR CALENDAR
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD:
April 13, 2011 - May 13, 2011
U.S. EPA will accept written comments on the Proposed
Plan during the public comment period.
PUBLIC MEETING: April 21, 2011
U.S. EPA will hold a public meeting to explain the
preferred remedy in the Proposed Plan. Oral and written
comments will also be accepted at the meeting. The
meeting will be held at the Rockaway Township
Municipal Building, located at 65 Mount Hope Road,
Rockaway, New Jersey at 7:00pm
For more information, see the Administrative Record
at the following locations:
U.S. EPA Records Center, Region II
290 Broadway, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10007-1866
(212)637-3261
Hours: Monday - Friday 9:00 am to 5:00 pm
Rockaway Township Free Public Library
61 Mount Hope Road
Rockaway, New Jersey 08341
(973) 627-2344
Hours: Monday - Friday 9 am to 9 pm
understanding of the Site and the Superfund activities
that have been conducted.
The dates for the public comment period, the date,
location and time of the public meeting, and the locations
of the Administrative Record files, are provided on the
front page of this Proposed Plan. This Proposed Plan
and the supporting documents are being made available
to the public during the public comment period. Written
comments on the Proposed Plan will be welcomed
-------
through May 13, 2011 and, if received by that date, will
be considered by EPA before it issues the Record of
Decision (ROD), which will formally document the
selected remedy. All written comments should be
addressed to:
Mr. Brian Quinn
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 2
290 Broadway-19th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10007-1866
The selected remedy will be documented in the ROD only
after consideration of all comments received. A public
meeting has been scheduled for April 21, 2011 at 7:00
pm at the Rockaway Township Municipal Building.
SITE HISTORY
Background/Site Characteristics
The Site is located in a predominantly rural area in the
western portion of Morris County, New Jersey, at 108
Lake Denmark Road in the Township of Rockaway. It is
situated approximately five miles north of Exit 37 of
Interstate 80.
The entire Site consists of approximately 263 acres of
land which is comprised of three distinct areas: the active
former RTI complex (15 acres) the former Rockaway
Industrial Park (RIP) (65 acres), and undeveloped land
(183 acres) adjacent to those areas. Past activities at the
Site have included the testing and development of rocket
motors and propellants. More recent operations included
irradiating food, cosmetics, and medical devices to
sterilize them. Buildings in the RIP area have been
vacant since 2006 and are in various stages of disrepair
and/or disintegration. Only one business, Sterigenics
International, occupies buildings on the former RTI
portion of the Site.
Beginning in 1980, NJDEP and the Rockaway Township
Health Department conducted numerous inspections of
the Site. These inspections revealed that drums
containing solvents and other organic chemicals were
being improperly stored and disposed of by the owner
and operator of Site, Radiation Technology, Inc.
In 1981, the Rockaway Township Health Department
sampled two on-Site water supply wells. Results
indicated that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) had
contaminated the groundwater supplying these wells.
They subsequently were condemned by the New Jersey
Department of Health and the NJDEP, and were closed.
On July 6, 1983, NJDEP and RTI signed a judicial
Consent Order, which required RTI to install ground
water monitoring wells and collect samples for VOC
analyses to determine the source of the contamination.
In August 1984, NJDEP issued a Site Evaluation Report
with the objective of identifying sources of groundwater
contamination at and around the RTI property. The
results of the well sampling and analysis indicated that
elevated levels of VOCs were present in the samples
analyzed. Subsequently, the Site was placed on the
National Priorities List (NPL) of Superfund sites in
September 1984.
On March 12, 1987, RTI entered into an Administrative
Order on Consent (AOC) with NJDEP and agreed to pay
the cost of an investigation into the nature and extent of
contamination at the Site. On December 12, 1992, RTI
signed a second AOC with NJDEP, agreeing to perform
some cleanup activities at the Site. In May 1993, under
NJDEP supervision, RTI removed and disposed of
abandoned tanks and drums off Site resulting from the
above investigation. On May 9, 1994, NJDEP issued a
ROD, selecting groundwater extraction and treatment as
the remedy for the most-contaminated portion of the Site.
The following remedial action objectives (RAOs) were
established for the groundwater at the Site:
• Prevent potential human exposure to
contaminants in the deep aquifer groundwater
which pose future carcinogenic risk to human
health in excess of 10"6 and/or which have a
hazard index greater than 1. (Human health risk
assessment is described on page ***)
• Control the spread of groundwater
contamination.
These RAOs would be achieved by the following
remedial action components:
• Treatment of the groundwater via extraction of
the more highly contaminated groundwater and
natural attenuation of residual groundwater
contamination;
• Reinjection of the treated groundwater; and
• Appropriate environmental monitoring to ensure
the effectiveness of the remedy.
In addition, NJDEP and EPA acknowledged the need for
subsequent investigations of potential sources of
-------
groundwater contamination at the Site. This Proposed
Plan focuses on those investigations.
Remedial Investigation
In January 2001, EPA assumed the lead for the Site at
NJDEP's request. In May 2004, EPA negotiated a
Consent Decree with Alliant Techsystems, Inc. (ATK) (a
successor to Thiokol, a former owner and operator of the
Site), to undertake the groundwater cleanup. In
September 2004 and April 2005, ATK conducted
groundwater sampling as part of a preliminary design
investigation to obtain a better understanding of the
groundwater contamination conditions and to confirm the
viability of the groundwater remedy selected in the 1994
ROD. The results indicated that further sampling would
be necessary and ATK recommended that additional
monitoring wells be installed.
In October 2004, ATK and EPA entered into an AOC to
investigate potential sources of groundwater
contamination at the Site. ATK conducted a preliminary
assessment of a waste/drum disposal area located within
the active former RTI complex. Samples were taken
from deteriorated drums and adjacent soils. The results
of the sampling indicated that elevated concentrations of
metals (aluminum (495,000 milligrams per kilogram
(mg/kg)), arsenic (72 mg/kg), cobalt (65 mg/kg), copper
(18,500 mg/kg), iron (689,000 mg/kg), manganese
(3,400 mg/kg), and thallium (53 mg/kg)) were found in
deteriorated drum material.
Additionally, EPA identified asbestos-containing material
covering piping along a fence in a portion of the Site.
EPA removed the material in November 2006.
In early 2007, EPA was notified by the U.S. Army
Military Munitions Response Program that a portion of
the Site is within the boundaries of earlier projectile
practice firing over Lake Denmark from the Picatinny
Arsenal. As a result, the potential exists for the presence
of unexploded ordnance. An initial inspection conducted
in the summer of 2007 by the U.S. Army concluded that
no immediate actions were necessary. However,
ordnance-avoidance procedures were recommended for
certain field activities at the Site. In May 2008, EPA and
ATK received information from the U.S. Army on the
types of materials that should be avoided.
In July 2008, EPA approved ATK's proposal to
investigate potentially contaminated source areas on the
Site. In September and November 2008, ATK collected
130 soil, surface water, sediment, waste pit, and tank
samples to investigate potential source(s) of
contamination to the groundwater. The results of the
field activities indicate that the deteriorated drum
material in a portion of the Site referred to as the
waste/drum disposal area would need to be addressed.
WHAT IS A "PRINCIPAL THREAT"?
The NCP establishes an expectation that EPA will use treatment to
address the principal threats posed by a site wherever practicable (NCP
Section 300.430(a)( 1 )(iii)(A)). The "principal threat" concept is applied
to the characterization of "source materials" at a Superfund site. A source
material is material that includes or contains hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants that act as a reservoir for migration of
contamination to ground water, surface water or air, or acts as a source for
direct exposure. Contaminated ground water generally is not considered
to be a source material; however, Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (NAPLs)
in ground water may be viewed as source material. Principal threat wastes
are those source materials considered to be highly toxic or highly mobile
that generally cannot be reliably contained, or would present a significant
risk to human health or the environment should exposure occur. The
decision to treat these wastes is made on a site-specific basis through a
detailed analysis of the alternatives using the nine remedy selection criteria
This analysis provides a basis for making a statutory finding that the
remedy employs treatment as a principal element.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF THIS ACTION
In order to better manage Superfund sites, work is often
divided into phases, or operable units (OUs). OU1
addresses groundwater at the Site. This action, referred
to as OU2 which involves, excavation of drum material
with off-Site disposal and/or treatment, is not intended to
be the final action for this Site. EPA is currently
conducting other activities, such as building
investigations, which will be the focus of a third OU.
This Proposed Plan summarizes the remedial alternative
analyzed in the Focused Feasibility Study (FFS), and
discusses the preferred alternative for addressing the on-
Site waste/drum disposal area which could pose a threat
to human health and the environment.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
As part of the RI/FS, a baseline risk assessment was
conducted to estimate the current and future effects of
contaminants on human health and the environment. A
baseline risk assessment is an analysis of the potential
adverse human health and ecological effects of releases of
hazardous substances from a site in the absence of any
actions or controls to mitigate such releases, under
current and future land uses. The baseline risk
assessment includes a human health risk assessment and
an ecological risk assessment. It provides the basis for
taking action and identifies the contaminants and
exposure pathways that need to be addressed by the
-------
remedial action. The present land use within the Site is
generally considered light industrial and commercial,
although there are also significant portions of the Site
that are undeveloped. It is anticipated that the future land
use for this area will remain consistent with its current
use.
A four-step human health risk assessment process was
used for assessing site-related cancer risks and noncancer
health hazards. The four-step process is comprised of:
Hazard Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern
(COPCs), Exposure Assessment, Toxicity Assessment,
and Risk Characterization (see adjoining box "What is
Risk and How is it Calculated").
A baseline risk assessment is an analysis of the potential
adverse human health and ecological effects caused by
hazardous substance releases from a site in the absence
of any actions to control or mitigate the releases under
current and future land uses. The following areas: South
Stand, P-2, RTI, East Stand, and Drum Disposal (see
Figure 1) were evaluated in the baseline risk assessment.
While contaminants were found in the various areas, with
the exception of the Drum Disposal Area, all of the areas
investigated fell within EPA's acceptable risk range.
Human Health Risk Assessment
Risks and hazards were evaluated for current and future
exposure to drum materials and soil from around the
drum material. The potential populations evaluated for
exposure included adult commercial workers and future
residents. The hazard indices for the commercial worker
scenario (3.1) and future resident scenario (42) from
exposure to drum materials were above the acceptable
value of 1.0. Additionally, the cancer risk for potential
future residents was above the EPA acceptable risk range
of 10"6 to lO'4. The hazard index for exposure to surface
soil for future potential residents was also above the
acceptable value of 1.
What is Risk and How is it Calculated?
A Superfund human health risk assessment is an analysis of the
potential adverse health effects caused by hazardous substances
released from a site in the absence of any actions to control or mitigate
these releases; it estimates the "baseline risk" in the absence of any
remedial actions at the site under current and future land uses. To
estimate this baseline risk at a Superfund site, a four-step process
utilized for assessing site-related human health risk for reasonable
maximum exposure (RME) scenarios.
Hazard Identification: The hazard identification step identifies the
contaminants of potential concern (COPC) in groundwater for this
specific Site. Factors considered include: toxicity, frequency of
occurrence, fate and transport of the contaminants in the environment,
concentrations of the contaminants in specific media, mobility,
persistence, and bioaccumulation.
Exposure Assessment: In this step, the different exposure pathways
through which people might be exposed to the contaminants identified
in the previous step are evaluated. Examples of exposure pathways
for a groundwater site include ingestion of groundwater and inhalation
of volatiles while showering. Factors relating to the exposure
assessment include but are not limited to the concentrations that
people might be exposed to and the potential frequency and duration
of exposure. Using these factors, a RME scenario, which portrays the
highest level of human exposure that could reasonably be expected to
occur, is calculated.
Toxicity Assessment: The toxicity step determines the types of adverse
health effects associated with exposures to chemicals or radionuclides,
and the relationship between the magnitude of exposure (dose) and
severity of adverse effects (response). Potential health effects are
chemical or radionuclide-specific and may include the risk of
developing cancer over a lifetime or other non-cancer health effects
such as changes in the normal functions of organs within the body
(e.g., changes in the effectiveness of the immune system). Some
chemicals are capable of causing both cancer and non-cancer health
effects.
Risk Characterization: This step summarizes and combines outputs of
the exposure and toxicity assessments to provide a quantitative
assessment of site risks. Exposures are evaluated based on the
potential risk for developing cancer and the potential for non-cancer
health hazards. The likelihood of an individual developing cancer is
expressed as a probability. For example, a 10'4 cancer risk means a
one in ten thousand excess cancer risk"; or one additional cancer may
be seen in a population of 10,000 people as a result of exposure to site
contaminants under the conditions explained in the exposure
assessment. Current federal Superfund guidelines for acceptable
exposures are an individual lifetime excess cancer risk in the range of
4 to 10"6 (corresponding to a one-in-ten-thousand to a one-in-a-
million excess cancer risk). For non-cancer health effects, a "Hazard
Index" (HI) is calculated. An HI represents the sum of the individual
exposure levels compared to their corresponding Reference Doses
(RiDs). The key concept for a non-cancer Hazard Index is that a
"threshold level" (measured as an HI of 1) exists below which non-
cancer health effects are not expected to occur.
-------
The following exposure pathway is considered to be of
potential significance in the baseline risk assessment:
• Exposure to the drum material.
Summary of Hazards and Risks Associated with the
Drum Disposal Area.
Receptor
Hazard
Index
Cancer Risk
Drum Material
Commercial Worker -
Adult
Resident- Adult/Child
3.1
42
5.0E-05
2.1E-04
Soil
Commercial Worker -
Adult
Resident -Adult/Child
<1
1.3
<1.0E-06
6.0E-06
The COCs identified for the Drum Disposal Area
include: aluminum, arsenic, cobalt, copper, iron,
manganese, and thallium.
Ecological Risk Assessment
A screening-level ecological risk assessment was
conducted to evaluate the potential for ecological effects
from exposure to surface soil, surface water and
sediment. Surface soil, surface water, and sediment
concentrations were compared to ecological screening
values as an indicator of the potential for adverse effects
to ecological receptors. Exposure was also evaluated for
terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species through the
ingestion of prey and direct soil ingestion.
A complete summary of all exposure scenarios can be
found in the screening level ecological risk assessment
(SLERA). In summary, the results of the SLERA
indicate that concentrations of contaminants detected in
surface soil, surface water, and sediment at the Site are
unlikely to pose any unacceptable risks to terrestrial or
aquatic ecological receptors at the Site.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
The following remedial action objective (RAO) has been
established for the waste/drum disposal area of the Site:
• Reduce or eliminate direct contact risks
associated with contaminated drum material and
associated contaminated soil to levels protective
for residential use:
To achieve this RAO, preliminary remediation goals
(PRGs) were developed for the Site based on state
promulgated applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs).
The following clean-up goals are based on NJDEP's
residential soil remediation standards.
Contaminant
Aluminum
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Thallium
Arsenic
PRGs (mg/kg)
77,344
25
3,083
82,600
3,640
5
19
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Do to the limited extent of the contaminated area, EPA
considered a containment remedy during the FES
planning phase, but determined it was not appropriate
under the circumstances and eliminated it from further
consideration.
Alternative 1: No action
Estimated Capital Cost: $0
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $0
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $0
Estimated Construction Time frame: None
Regulations governing the Superfund program require
that a "no action" alternative be evaluated to establish a
baseline for comparison to other alternatives. Under this
alternative, EPA would take no action at the Site to
prevent exposure to contaminated drum material. Since
this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on the Site above levels that would not allow for
unlimited use, a review of the Site at least every five
years would be required.
Alternative 2: Excavation of Drum Material, with
Off-Site Disposal and/or Treatment
Estimated Capital Cost: $196,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $4,000
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $200,000
Estimated Construction Time frame: 1 month
Estimated Time to Achieve RAOs: 1 month
Under this alternative, approximately 100 cubic yards of
contaminated drum material in the waste/drum disposal
area would be excavated and transported off-Site for
treatment and/or disposal. Following excavation of the
-------
drum material, soils adjacent to the excavated drum
material will be sampled to determine if they are above
the PRGs. If the sampling results indicate that the soils
are the above PRGs, they will be excavated and treated
and/or disposed of off Site. In addition, any debris that is
comingled with the contaminated drum material will be
removed, treated and/or disposed of off Site. Following
source remediation, areas disturbed by excavation
activities will be re-vegetated and restored to pre-
excavation conditions.
EVALUATING REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Nine criteria are used to evaluate remediation alternatives
individually and against each other in order to select the
best alternative. This section of the Proposed Plan
profiles the relative performance of the alternatives
against the nine criteria. The nine evaluation criteria are
discussed below.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
1. Overall Protectiveness of Human Health and
the Environment
Alternative 1, "no action," will not provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment.
Alternative 2 (excavation of drum material with off-Site
disposal and/or treatment) will remove the contaminated
material in the drum disposal area. Therefore,
Alternative 2 is considered to be protective of human
health and the environment.
Because the "no action" alternative is not protective of
human health and the environment, it was eliminated
from consideration under the remaining eight criteria.
2. Compliance with the ARARs
Actions taken at any Superfund site must meet all
ARARs for federal and state law or provide grounds for
invoking a waiver of these requirements. These include
chemical-specific, location-specific, and action-specific
ARARs. Alternative 2 would attain site-specific, risk-
based soil PRGs and would meet all chemical,-location-
and action-specific ARARs.
3. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 2 would be permanent and effective since it
removes the contaminated drum material from the Site.
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR SUPERFUND REMEDIAL
ALTERNATIVES
Overall Protectiveness of Human Health and the Environment determines
whether an alternative eliminates, reduces, or controls threats to public health
and the environment through institutional controls, engineering controls, or
treatment.
Compliance with ARARs evaluates whether the alternative meets Federal and
State environmental statutes, regulations, and other requirements that pertain to
the site, or whether a waiver is justified.
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence considers the ability of an
alternative to maintain protection of human health and the environment over
time.
Reduction ofToxicity, Mobility, or Volume of Contaminants through
Treatment evaluates an alternative's use of treatment to reduce the harmful
effects of principal contaminants, their ability to move in the environment, and
the amount of contamination present.
Short-term Effectiveness considers the length of time needed to implement an
alternative and the risks the alternative poses to workers, residents, and the
environment during implementation.
Implementability considers the technical and administrative feasibility of
implementing the alternative, including factors such as the relative availability
of goods and services.
Cost includes estimated capital and annual operations and maintenance costs,
as well as present worth cost. Present worth cost is the total cost of an
alternative over time in terms of today's dollar value. Cost estimates are
expected to be accurate within a range of+50 to -30 percent.
State/Support Agency Acceptance considers whether the State agrees with the
EPA's analyses and recommendations, as described in the RI/FS and Proposed
Plan.
Community Acceptance considers whether the local community agrees with
EPA's analyses and preferred alternative. Comments received on the Proposed
Plan are an important indicator of community acceptance.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of
Contaminants through Treatment
Alternative 2 would reduce mobility of the contaminants
in the drum material through excavation of contaminated
drum material and disposal at an off-Site facility, and
would reduce toxicity if treated off Site.
5. Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternative 2 would present short-term risk because of
the potential for exposure to contaminated drum material
during excavation and off-Site transportation. Air
monitoring, engineering controls and the appropriate use
of personal protective equipment for workers would be
effective means to protect the community and workers.
6. Implementability
Alternative 2 may require excavation support and
dewatering systems during the contaminated drum
-------
material excavation activities. Equipment and vendors
for implementation of Alternative 2 are readily available
and are, therefore, not expected to present a challenge to
remedy implementation.
Consistent with EPA Region 2's Clean and Green policy,
EPA will evaluate the use of sustainable technologies and
practices with respect to any remedial alternative selected
and implemented for the Site.
7. Cost
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The estimated present worth cost of Alternatives 2 is
$200,000.
8. State/Support Agency Acceptance
The State of New Jersey is currently evaluating EPA's
Preferred Alternative in this Proposed Plan.
9. Community Acceptance
EPA will evaluate community acceptance of the Preferred
Alternative after the public comment period ends. EPA
will discuss community acceptance in the ROD, the
document that formalizes the selection of the remedy for
the Site.
SUMMARY OF THE PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
The proposed remedy for the cleanup of contaminated
drum material at the Site is Alternative 2, (excavation of
contaminated drum material with off-Site disposal and/or
treatment).
EPA anticipates that all of the contaminated drum
material exceeding PRGs will be removed from the drum
disposal area. Following excavation of the drum
material, soils adjacent to the excavated drum material
will be sampled to determine if they are above the PRGs.
If the sampling results indicated that the soils are the
above PRGs, they will be excavated and disposed and/or
treated of off-Site. In addition, any debris that is
comingled with contaminated drum material will be
removed, disposed and/or treated off-Site.
EPA believes the Preferred Alternative will be protective
of human health and the environment, will comply with
ARARs, will be cost effective, and will utilize permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable.
The Preferred Alternative meets the statutory preference
for the use of remedies that employ treatment that
reduces toxicity, mobility or volume as a principal
element to address the principal threats at the Site. The
Preferred Alternative can change in response to public
comment or new information.
EPA provides information regarding the cleanup of the
RTI Site to the public through public meetings, the
Administrative Record file for the site, and
announcements published in the Daily Record. EPA and
the State encourage the public to gain a more
comprehensive understanding of the site and the
Superfund activities that have been conducted there. The
dates for the public comment period, the date, location
and time of the public meeting, and the locations of the
Administrative Record files, are provided on the front
page of this Proposed Plan.
EPA Region 2 has designated a Regional Public Liaison
Manager as a point-of-contact for community concerns
and questions about the federal Superfund program in
New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands. To support this effort, the Agency has
established a 24-hour, toll-free number that the public
can call to request information, express their concerns or
register complaints about Superfund.
For Further Information on the RTI Site, please contact:
Brian Quinn
Remedial Project Manager
212-637^381
quinn.brian@epa.gov
Patricia Seppi
Community Involvement Coordinator
212-637-3679
seppi.patrica@epa.gov
U.S. EPA
290 Broadway, 19th Floor.
New York, New York 10007-1866
The Regional Public Liaison Manager for EPA's Region 2 office is:
George H. Zachos
Toll-free (888) 283-7626
(732)321-6621
U.S. EPA Region 2
2890 Woodbridge Avenue, MS-211
Edison, New Jersey 08837
------- |