PB96-963816
EPA/ROD/R02-96/283
March 1997
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Shieldalloy Corporation Superfund Site,
Newfield Borough, NJ
9/17/1996
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
GROUND WATER OPERABLE UNIT
SHIELDALLOY CORPORATION
NEWFIELD BOROUGH
GLOUCESTER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
SEPTEMBER 1996
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
GROUND WATER OPERABLE UNIT
Shieldalloy Corporation
Newfield Borough
Gloucester County, New Jersey
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents . Page Number
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION i
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
n. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 4
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 5
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 5
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 7
VII. REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 12
VIII. DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 12
IX. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 20
X. SELECTED REMEDY 28
XI. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 29
XII. DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 30
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY-
APPENDIX B - RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
APPENDDC C - LIST OF ACRONYMS
APPENDIX D - TRANSCRIPTION OF PUBLIC MEETING
APPENDIX E - EPA LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX F - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
GROUND WATER OPERABLE UNIT
Shieldalloy Corporation
Newfield Borough
Gloucester County, New Jersey
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued1)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title
1 Site Location Map
2 Local Site Setting
3 Major Site Features
4 Well Restriction Area
5 Existing Extraction, Treatment and Discharge Plan
6 Extent of TCE Plume, Shallow and Deep Aquifers, April 1995
7 Extent of Chromium Plume, Shallow and Deep Aquifers, April 1995
8 Risk Assessment Scenario 3 Monitoring Well Locations
9 Modified Extraction, Treatment and Discharge Plan
USTQFTAEIES
Table No. Title
1 Ground Water Constituents of Concern
2 Summary of Cancer and Non-Cancer Risk Estimates for Exposures to Ground
Water
3 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements for the Ground Water
Remedial Action "*
4 Chemical-Specific ARARs for the Ground Water Remedial Action
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
GROUND WATER OPERABLE UNIT
Shieldalloy Corporation
Newfield Borough
Gloucester County, New Jersey
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Shieldalloy Corporation
Newfield Borough
Gloucester County, New Jersey
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's
(NJDEP's) selected remedial action for the ground water operable unit at the Shieldalloy
Corporation Syperfund site, also known as Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation (SMC), in
Newfield, New Jersey, which was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), 42 U.S.C.§96H et sea, and, to the extent
practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40
CFR Part 300 el sea. NJDEP maintains the Administrative Record in Trenton and two document
repositories located in the Newfield Borough Hall and the Newfield Borough Library. Detailed
in Section III, herein, the Administrative Record Index contains a list of the documents which
formed the basis of NJDEP's selection of the remedy. This decision document explains the
factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for this site.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concurs with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by
implementing the preferred remedy or one of the other active measures considered in this Record
of Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and substantia^ threat to public health, welfare, or
the environment
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
This ground water operable unit is the first operable unit for the site; all remaining contaminated
environmental media will be addressed as one or more additional operable units. The selected
remedy, Modified Ground Water Restoration, addresses the principal threat posed by ground
water contamination through ground water extraction, treatment and discharge. Since it includes
a pump-and-treat action, it will require long-term operation and maintenance until such time as
i
-------
cleanup levels are achieved. In combination with the other operable unit(s) for the site, it will
provide an overall site remedy.
The major components of the selected remedy are as follows:
Modified Ground Water Extraction System to optimize the capture of contaminated
ground water;
Air Stripping to remove volatile organic compounds from the recovered ground
water;
Electrochemical Treatment with Supplemental Treatment (as required) to remove
inorganic contaminants, especially metals, from the recovered ground water; and
Discharge of treated ground water to surface waters of the Hudson Branch of the
Maurice River.
DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with Federal
and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
(or resource recovery) technologies to the maximum extent practicable, and it satisfies the
statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
as a principal element.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on site above health-based
levels, a review will be conducted within five years after commencement of the remedial action
to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment.
Richard J. GirtielloJAspistant Commissioner
Site Remediation Fxfgram
Date
ii
-------
DECISION SUMMARY FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
GROUND WATER OPERABLE UNIT
Shieldalloy Corporation
Newfield Borough
Gloucester County, New Jersey
I. SITE NAME. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation (SMC) site consists of approximately 87.5 acres. The
manufacturing facilities and support areas are situated on 67.7 acres of land located in the
predominantly in the Borough of Newfield, within Gloucester County. SMC also owns 19.8
acres of farm land located in Vineland, within Cumberland County, approximately 2,000 feet
southwest of the Newfield parcel. A site location map is provided as Figure 1, and a local site
setting plan is provided as Figure 2.
The SMC Newfield property is bounded by a Conrail rail line to the west and to the north.
Wooded areas, residences, and small businesses are located east and west of the site. The Hudson
Branch, a tributary to Burnt Mill Branch and the Maurice River, flows along the southern portion
of the site, just north of residences located along Weymouth Road. A large portion of the facility
is surrounded by a steel wire fence. The property surrounding SMC is used for a combination
of residential and industrial purposes.
Wetlands and open water have been identified and are limited to the area adjacent to the Hudson
Branch. The wetlands vary in width from 40 to 400 feet and extend onto undeveloped portions
of the site.
The major subsurface geologic feature underlying the site and surrounding area is the Cohansey
Sand Formation, part of the New Jersey Coastal Plain Sole Source Aquifer, which serves nearby
residences with potable drinking water. The Cohansey Sand Formation typically ranges from 110
to 120 feet in thickness. Data from the Remedial Investigation (Rl) indicates that, in general, the
Cohansey Sand is comprised of coarse sands in the upper 40 feet, and finer sand, with some silt
and clay, in the lower 60 to 80 feet. The Cohansey Sand is underlain by the Kirkwood
Formation, the upper portion of which is composed of silt and clay. The upper Kirkwood
Formation acts as a confining layer and restricts the downward flow of ground water from the
Cohansey Sand.
The depth to ground water fluctuates seasonally, but generally ranges from 4 feet below the
surface in the southern portion of the site to 16 feet below the surface in the northern portion.
The ground water flow direction closely corresponds with the general topography of the site,
which slopes towards the southwest. Because of the smaller grain size and increased percentage
of silt and clay, ground water movement is slower in the lower Cohansey Sand. Since the upper
and lower Cohansey Sand have different hydrologic properties, the ground water quality at the
1
-------
site was evaluated separately for the "shallow" (less than 50 feet deep) and "deep" (greater than
50 feet deep) ground water.
The ground water is classified as Class II-A. The primary designated use for Class II-A ground
water is potable water and conversion (through conventional water supply treatment, mixing or
other similar techniques) to potable water. Secondary designated uses include agricultural and
industrial water.
n. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Land Use
SMC has been operating at the Newfield facility since approximately 1955, processing ores and
minerals to produce primary metals, specialty metals and ferroalloys. The principal production
processes include aluminothermic and reduction smelting of ores which produce metal, slag and
other by-products. Raw materials have contained the following metals: chromium, bismuth,
copper, titanium, vanadium, calcium, aluminum, zirconium, iron, lead, nickel, silicon, magnesium,
manganese, fluoride salts and oxides of niobium (columbium), vanadium, barium, calcium and
aluminum.
The SMC facility can be characterized as consisting of four areas:
the Manufacturing Area;
the .Undeveloped Plant Property;
the By-product Storage Area; and
the Lagoon Area.
Major site features are indicated in Figure 3. An area of note within the Manufacturing Area is
the former location of a metal degreasing unit, referred to as the Manpro-Vibra Degreasing Unit,
which was operated from 1965 to 1967 and used trichloroethene as a degreasing compound. The
Undeveloped Plant Property includes the location of a 1990 spill of chromium wastewater,
refened to as the tank T12 chromium wastewater spill area. The By-product Storage Area is
used to store slags and other by-product materials generated as a result of the manufacturing
processes. Due to the presence of naturally-occurring thorium and uranium in certain raw
materials used at the facility, some of the slags and dusts generated contain low levels of
radioactive isotopes. These slags and dusts are stored in a portion of the By-Product Storage
Area and are subject to regulation by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The
Lagoon Area consists of nine lagoons which were formerly used to store wastewaters. Untreated
wastewater from air pollution control equipment and from a chromium-oxide production operation
was discharged into an unlined percolation lagoon, which existed in the location of the nine
lagoons, between 1963 and 1970.
2
-------
Response History
Chromium contamination of the ground water was first observed by the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in early 1970 in a Borough of Newfield municipal well
and a private well. Concentrations greater than 100 parts per million (ppm) of hexavalent
chromium, the mobile form of chromium, were detected in on-site monitoring ¦wells. Hexavalent
chromium is a known carcinogen. As a result, NJDEP directed SMC to perform ground water
investigations to determine the extent of the chromium contamination and to develop an
appropriate remedial action. Investigations were performed which resulted in the installation and
operation of a ground water recovery and treatment system in 1979. That system, which pumped
contaminated ground water from one well located in the southwest comer of SMC's plant
property, was capable of remediating SO gallons per minute (gpm) of contaminated ground water
using ion exchange technology with discharge of treated water to the Hudson Branch.
Subsequent investigations revealed that this system was not sufficient to remedy the known extent
of chromium contamination. NJDEP informed SMC of this determination in May 1982.
In June 1983, NJDEP completed a Potential Hazardous Waste Site Inspection Report. This report
was applied to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Hazard Ranking System which
resulted in the facility being placed on EPA's National Priorities List as a Superfund site in
September 1983 based on the presence of chromium contamination in the ground water.
In September 1984, NJDEP and SMC entered into an Administrative Consent Order (ACO)
which required SMC to conduct a feasibility study for improved remediation of the chromium-
contaminated ground water and to continue with the existing remediation program until a new
system could be completed.
In addition to chromium, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were also detected in the ground
water which prompted NJDEP to establish a "well restriction area" in 1986, as indicated in Figure
4, and use money available from the New Jersey Spill Fund to extend an existing public water
line to affected residents. The establishment of the well restriction area required mandatory
connection with the public water system. Since the majority of the chromium contamination lies
within the well restriction area, the residents within the restriction area are also protected from
using the chromium-contaminated ground water.
In January 1988, SMC completed a report entitled Ground Water Remediation Alternatives which
presented alternatives for improvement of the remedial system. The study recommended that
ground water recovery and treatment should be increased from 80 gpm, 13 to 16 hours per day,
5 days per week, to 400 gpm, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week to minimize contaminant
migration and ensure timely removal of the chromium contamination. The study recommended
the continued use of ion exchange technology, and also recommended that four additional
recovery wells be installed, with continued discharge to the Hudson Branch. As stated above,
the VOC contamination exists in a plume that overlaps with the chromium plume. To remove
the VOC contamination that would be recovered along with the chromium contamination, SMC
added an air stripper to the design of the system in response to NJDEP and public concerns.
3
-------
In October 1988, NJDEP and SMC entered into a second ACO which required SMC to initiate
operation of the 400 gpm ground water remediation system as an interim remedial measure and
to conduct a site-wide remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS).
SMC began operation of the upgraded system in July 1989. However, because of unforeseen
difficulties, such as resin fouling by naturally occurring iron in the ground water, the
effectiveness of the ion exchange system in treating the ground water at a 400 gpm rate was
variable. The system could not operate to design specifications, so it was operated in a manner
that required frequent, but temporary, shutdowns. The system had been operating at rates
averaging approximately 200 gpm.
Because of the difficulties with the ion exchange system, SMC constructed an electrochemical
treatment unit. The electrochemical treatment unit has been in operation since October 1992,
replacing the ion exchange system as the primary treatment process for the removal of inorganic
contaminants. It has been effective in the treatment of the chromium contamination in the
recovered ground water, removing significantly higher amounts of chromium from the ground
water than was achievable using die ion exchange system. The electrochemical treatment unit
has achieved and maintained the treatment rate of approximately 400 gpm with effluent
concentrations of chromium of less than 30 parts per billion (ppb). The ion exchange unit
remains on-site but is currently not operated. The air stripper continues to provide VOC
treatment. The locations of the existing extraction wells and treatment building are indicated in
Figure 5.
SMC has been discharging the treated ground water to the Hudson Branch in accordance with
a New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) discharge to surface water
permit. NJDEP is in process of renewing the permit based on current data and changes in the
regulations. Once complete, NJDEP will provide public notice and the draft discharge to surface
water permit will be available for public comment
Field work for the RI was initiated in October 1990. The scope of the RI was extensive,
addressing ground water, surface and subsurface soils, surface water, sediments and air. In
addition to the RI, the ACOs require monthly monitoring of ground water for selected
contaminants. As a result, a large amount of ground water data is available for use in designing
the remedial action. With the submittal of the RI Report in 1991, NJDEP determined that enough
data existed to address the ground water as a separate operable unit, and directed the preparation
of a focused feasibility study (FFS) to evaluate remedial actions for ground water. The other
contaminated environmental media will be addressed as one or more additional operable units in
the near future.
IIL HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The local community has been concerned and involved in the site investigation and remediation
process at the SMC facility. A public meeting was held on January 31, 1989 at Newfield
4
-------
Borough Hall to discuss the remedial actions at the site, predominantly the start-up of the ACO-
required ground water remediation system. The initiation of the RI/FS Work Plan was also
discussed. Another public meeting was held on October 23, 1990, again at Newfield Borough
Hall, to provide the public with an update on the progress of the Rl/FS and the ACO-required
ground water remediation system.
As required by CERCLA, an Administrative Record was established and includes documents
which NJDEP considered or relied on to select the remedial action and documents which
demonstrate the public's opportunity to participate in and comment on the selection of the
remedial action. The complete Administrative Record for the site is maintained and is available
for public inspection at the NJDEP offices in Trenton. Document repositories were established
at the Newfield Borough Hall and the Newfield Borough Library to provide the public with
copies of the major documents right in town. Included in each of the document repositories is
an Administrative Record Index which lists all of the documents in the Administrative Record.
The Index is included in this ROD as Appendix F.
The RI Report, FFS Report and the Proposed Plan for the ground water operable unit at the SMC
site were released to the public for comment on August 24, 199S and made available in both the
Administrative Record and in the document repositories. The notice of availability for these
documents was published in the Daily Journal of Vineland on August 24, 1995. The Human
Health Risk Assessment was added to the Administrative Record and document repositories on
August 29, 1995. A public comment period on the documents was held from August 24, 1995
to September 25, 1995. In addition, a public meeting was held on September 13, 1995. At this
meeting, representatives from NJDEP, EPA, SMC and TRC Environmental Corporation,
environmental consultants for SMC, were available to answer questions about the site and the
remedial alternatives under consideration. A response to the comments received during this
period is included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is attached as Appendix A to this
ROD.
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
Based upon the risk assessment conducted for SMC, which is discussed in more detail in the
following sections, ground water conditions at the site pose a principal threat to human health and
the environment, thereby providing the basis for the selected ground water remedial action. This
is the first remedial action to be implemented at the site. Other contaminated environmental
media, including those that are serving as a source of ground water contamination, will be
addressed as part of one or more additional operable units in the near future.
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Ground water analytical results from both the RI and the monthly monitoring indicate that
volatile organic and inorganic contamination exists beneath and beyond the SMC facility, in
5
-------
excess of the State and Federal maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking water.
Contaminant levels also exceed New Jersey's Ground Water Quality Standards (GWQS) for Class
II-A ground water. The contaminants are present in a plume that generally extends from the
facility towards the southwest.
TrichJoroethene (TCE) is the major VOC detected. Concentrations greater than 800 ppb were
detected during the RJ, exceeding the New Jersey MCL of 1 ppb. In the upper Cohansey Sands,
TCE contamination is centered around the former degreasing unit location (See Figure 3), and
extends to the southwest. In the lower Cohansey Sand, TCE is first detected downgradient of the
upper plume, extending to the southwest. Contaminant plumes for the upper and lower Cohansey
Sands based on April 1995 ground water monitoring data are presented in Figure 6.
Other VOCs detected above MCLs include tetrachloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2-
dichloroethene, benzene, toluene and xylene.
Chromium is the major inorganic contaminant in the ground water. The MCL for chromium is
100 ppb, and levels in excess of 100,000 ppb were detected during the RI. In the upper
Cohansey Sand, the total chromium plume is centered under the Manufacturing Area and the By-
product Storage Area. Downgradient, the chromium plume extends to the southwest. Total
chromium levels in the lower Cohansey Sand are greatest south of the Lagoon Area, extending
to the southwest. Total chromium contaminant plumes for the upper and lower Cohansey Sand
based on April 1995 ground water monitoring data are presented as Figure 7.
Other inorganics commonly detected in ground water samples include lead and antimony. Lead
was detected at-a maximum concentration of 262 ppb, which is above the GWQS of 10 ppb and
the federal drinking water action level of 15 ppb, in an upgradient shallow well located along the
northern property line between the By-product Storage Area and the Manufacturing Area. Lead
was also detected at levels exceeding the GWQS and federal action level in other wells located
throughout the site. Antimony was detected at a maximum concentration of 2,300 ppb, which
is above the MCL of 6 ppb, south of the Lagoon Area. A downgradient increase in antimony
levels was identified in the same general area in which elevated downgradient TCE levels were
detected. Both lead and antimony levels in the ground water generally decreased to the
southwest.
Other inorganic contaminants detected in excess of MCLs include arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
cyanide, mercury, nickel, nitrate, selenium and silver.
Vanadium and boron were also detected in the ground water at concentrations as high as 128,000
ppb and 18,300 ppb, respectively. Since there are no MCLs for these inorganics, risk-based
cleanup levels were developed. Vanadium and boron were detected in excess of their risk-based
cleanup levels of 260 ppb and 3,000 ppb, respectively, in a limited number of wells.
For ground water contaminants, the major transport mechanism is natural ground water migration.
The ground water flow direction under a no pumping condition is to the southwest, which
6
-------
coincides with the shapes of the ground water contaminant plumes presented in Figures 6 and 7.
SMC's ground water recovery system has been effective in controlling downgradient migration
of contaminated ground water. Operation of this system has clearly reduced the concentrations
of contaminants in ground water, as demonstrated by the analyses of ground water samples taken
from both on-site and off-site monitoring wells. The presence of the well restriction area
downgradient of the facility prevents potential exposures to ground water contaminants in this
downgradient area.
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A baseline risk assessment was conducted based on the results of the RI to estimate the potential
risks associated with current site conditions under current and potential future land uses. The
baseline risk assessment estimates the potential human health and ecological risks which could
result from the contamination at the site if no remedial action was taken. While the risk
assessment evaluates risks associated with exposures to several media at the site, the summary
of the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) presented below focuses on the risks posed by
ground water at the site. A more complete description can be found in the HHRA report (August
199S). An environmental evaluation is being conducted to evaluate actual or potential impacts
of site-related contamination on plants and animals which are exposed to soil, surface water and
sediments. Contaminated shallow ground water has the potential to discharge to and possibly
contaminate surface water bodies, although this has not been conclusively shown to occur in
relation to ground water near the site. However, because the potential impacts of contaminated
soil, surface water and sediment will be further evaluated as part of a separate operable unit, they
will not be discussed here.
The HHRA consisted of a four-step process to assess the potential site-related human health risks
under both current and potential future exposure scenarios. The four-step process included hazard
identification, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization. Basically, risk
characterization combines the estimates of exposure with the dose-response (or toxicity) values
to derive estimates of the potential cancer risks and the potential for adverse non-cancer health
effects.
The estimated cancer risks and non-cancer Hazard Indices associated with exposures to ground
water were evaluated using EPA's established target cancer nsk range for Superfund cleanups of
10** to 10"4 (1 in a million to 1 in 10,000) and target Hazard Index Ratio value of less than or
equal to 1. The State of New Jersey's criteria are based on an acceptable individual lifetime
carcinogenic risk of 10**. The risk assessment process is explained in greater detail below.
Hazard Identification
The hazard identification involved the selection of the contaminants of concern (COCs), which
are the detected contaminants that have inherent toxic/carcinogenic effects that are likely to pose
the greatest concern with respect to the protection of human health. The ground water COCs for
7
-------
SMC were chosen based upon the frequency of detection of each contaminant. This approach
is consistent with EPA guidance (EPA, 1989), with the exception that the COC list was not
reduced on the basis of comparison to background (upgradient) ground water quality. The list
of COCs may also be reduced based upon additional factors, such as essential nutrient
information and a concentration toxicity screen. However, EPA guidance indicates that this
further reduction is optional. Therefore, a reduction of the list of COCs on the basis of factors
beyond detection frequency was not applied in this assessment. The ground water COCs selected
in the HHRA are presented in Table 1.
Exposure Assessment
The exposure assessment identified the potential pathways and routes for COCs to reach potential
receptors, estimated the contaminant concentrations at the points of exposure and characterized
the extent of the potential exposures. Contaminant release mechanisms from the environmental
media, based on physical, chemical, and other environmental fate parameters, are also presented
in the HHRA.
Five potential human exposure scenarios were identified, as listed below:
Scenario 1 - Trespassing Scenario (Current)
Scenario 2 - Industrial Use Scenario (Current)
Scenario 3 - Residential Scenario (Current)
Scenario 4 - Construction Scenario (Future)
Scenario 5- Residential Scenario (Future)
The only scenario which includes exposures to ground water is Scenario 3 - Residential Scenario.
While an area near the SMC facility has been designated as a well restriction area (see Figure 4),
requiring mandatory connection with public water systems and sealing of domestic and supply
wells, residences located outside of this well restriction, primarily to the south of the site (along
Weymouth Road) may use private wells as a potable drinking water source and thus may
potentially be exposed to contaminated ground water. Exposures to both shallow and deep
ground water via private wells were evaluated. Data from four on-site monitoring wells located
near the potential receptors (see Figure 8) were used in the risk analysis (as discussed in more
detail later in this section). Potential exposure pathways included ingestion of ground water,
inhalation of VOCs from ground water released into bathroom air during showering, and dermal
contact with contaminants in ground water. This scenario assumes the following: 350 days of
exposures per year for 30 years; adult ingestion of 2 liters of ground water per day; and 12
minutes of bathing per day.
Risks associated with the potential future on-site residential use of the ground water as a potable
drinking water source were not quantified, since risks outside the acceptable carcinogenic risk
range and hazard index ratios greater than one were calculated for the potential consumption of
ground water under the current residential use scenario. Due to the detection of higher
concentrations of site-related contaminants in ground water samples that would be used to
8
-------
quantify potential future residential risk than in ground water samples used under the current
residential use scenario, it is believed that future use of ground water as a potable drinking water
source would also present an unacceptable human health risk.
Exposure point concentrations (EPCs) were calculated for each COC based upon a statistical
method which uses A confidence interval (i.e., the 95% upper confidence limit or UCL) to
calculate a theoretical concentration from actual data, per EPA guidance (EPA, 1989). Use of
this method provides reasonable confidence that the true site average will not be underestimated
(EPA, 1992). The probability that the actual average concentration on the she exceeds the
calculated value is estimated to be less than 5%. Therefore, the 95% UCL was calculated for
each compound based upon actual detected concentrations. When few data points are available
for statistical analysis (e.g., less than 10 data points), the 95% UCL is artificially inflated arid
exceeds the maximum detected concentration. In these cases, the maximum detected value was
used as the EPC rather than the 95% UCL.
For exposures to ground water under Scenario 3, the data from four on-site ground water
monitoring well locations (SC-13S/D, SC-22S/D, W2 and D) were assumed to be representative
of current contamination south of the SMC facility and the EPCs were developed on the basis
of the data from these wells alone. Separate EPC values were developed for shallow and deep
ground water data. Given the small number of wells included in the ground water evaluation,
most of the EPCs for the COCs in shallow and deep ground water corresponded to the maximum
detection concentration rather than the 95% UCL.
Toxicity Assessment
The toxicity assessment summarizes the types of adverse health effects associated with exposures
to each COC and the relationship between magnitude of exposure (dose) and severity of toxic
effect (response). The dose-response values used in the HHRA were obtained from a
combination of the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System ORIS) database (EPA, 1995) and
EPA's Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) (EPA, 1994). The toxicity values
used in the HHRA are presented in summary tables in Appendix B.
Cancer potency factors (CPFs), also known as slope factors, have been developed by EPA's
Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks
associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed in
units of (mg/kg-day)'1, are multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-
day, to provide an upper-bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with
exposure at that intake level. The term "upper bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the
risks calculated from the CPF. Use of this approach makes underestimation of the actual cancer
risk highly unlikely. Cancer potency factors are derived from the results of human
epidemiological studies or chronic animal bioassays to which animal-to-human extrapolation and
uncertainty factors have been applied.
9
-------
Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential for adverse
health effects from exposure to chemicals exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. RfDs, which are
expressed in units of mg/kg-day, are estimates of lifetime daily exposure levels for humans,
including sensitive individuals, that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse health
effects. Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g., the amount of a
chemical ingested from contaminated drinking water) can be compared to the RfD. RfDs are
derived from human epidemiological studies or animal studies to which uncertainty factors have
been applied (e.g., to account for the use of animal data to predict effects on humans). These
uncertainty factors help ensure that the RfDs will not underestimate the potential for adverse
noncarcinogenic effects to occur.
Risk Characterization
As previously stated, the risk characterization combines the estimates of exposure with the dose-
response (or toxicity) values to derive estimates of the potential cancer risks and the potential for
adverse non-cancer health effects.
Excess lifetime cancer risks are determined by multiplying the intake level with die CPF. These
risks are probabilities that are generally expressed in scientific notation (e.g., 1 x 1Q"4 or 1E-6).
An excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10"4 indicates that, as a plausible upper bound, an individual
has a one in one million chance of developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure to a
carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime under the specific exposure conditions.
Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a single contaminant in a single medium is
expressed as the hazard quotient (HQ), which is the ratio of the estimated intake derived from
the contaminant concentration in a given medium to the contaminant's RfD. By adding the HQs
for all contaminants within a medium or across all media to which a given population may
reasonably be exposed, the Hazard Index (HI) can be generated. The HI provides a useful
reference point for gauging the potential significance of multiple contaminant exposures within
a single medium or across media.
The results of the HHRA indicate that residential ground water use, as evaluated under exposure
Scenario 3, presents unacceptable human health risks. That is, estimated cancer risks, as
presented in Table 2, exceed EPA's established target cancer risk range of 10* to 10^ and the
State of New Jersey's acceptable carcinogenic risk of 10"6. The His, also presented in Table 2,
exceed the target value of 1. Residential exposures to deep ground water are associated with a
cancer risk of 7 x 10° and an HI of 8,000. Ingestion of ground water accounts for the majority
of these estimated risks, with arsenic and beryllium the main contributors to the cancer risk
estimate and hexavalent chromium the primary contributor to the HI. Detailed risk estimation
tables are presented in Appendix B. Residential exposures to shallow ground water are associated
with a cancer risk of 4 x 10*2 and an HI of 600, due mainly to ground water ingestion. The
elevated cancer risk value is due primarily to the presence of arsenic and beryllium. The primary
contributors to the HI value are arsenic, cyanide and vanadium.
10
-------
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in the HHRA, as in all such assessments, are
subject to a wide variety of uncertainties. In general, the main sources of uncertainty include:
* environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
* environmental parameter measurement
* fate and transport modeling
* exposure parameter estimation
* toxicological data
Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the potentially uneven distribution of
chemicals in the media sampled. Consequently, there is significant uncertainty as to the actual
levels present. For example, in the HHRA, there are uncertainties associated with the limited
amount of data and the infrequent rate of detection of some of the contaminants of concern.
Also, environmental chemistry-analysis error can stem from several sources including the errors
inherent in the analytical methods and characteristics of the matrix being sampled.
Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related to estimates of how often an individual
would actually come in contact with the chemicals of concern, the period of time over which such
exposure would occur, and in the models used to estimate the concentrations of the chemicals of
concern at the point of exposure. In this instance, uncertainties in the HHRA are associated with
the use of ground water as a potable source in the area south of the facility and the assumption
that ground water data from well locations SC-13S/D, SC-22S/D, W2 and D are representative
of private well -water quality.
Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both from animals to humans and from
high to low doses of exposure, as well as from the difficulties in assessing the toxicity of a
mixture of chemicals. These uncertainties are addressed by making conservative assumptions
concerning risk and exposure parameters throughout the assessment. As a result, the HHRA
provides upper-bound estimates of the risks to populations near the site, and is highly unlikely
to underestimate actual risks related to the site.
In general, these uncertainties are likely to overestimate, rather than underestimate, the risk.
A sensitivity analysis was conducted to provide insight into the magnitude of uncertainty
associated with those exposure pathways which contribute the majority of excess risk. A central
tendency risk estimate was calculated using most likely exposure (MLE) parameters. For
exposures to ground water, exposure pathways which present unacceptable risks under the
reasonable maximum exposure parameters based on the 95% UCL also present unacceptable risks
under the MLE parameters.
More specific information concerning public health risks, including a quantitative evaluation of
the degree of risk associated with various exposure pathways, is presented in the HHRA.
11
-------
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by
implementing the remedial action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
VH. REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives are specific goals to protect human health and the environment; they
specify the contaminant(s) of concern, the exposure route(s), receptors), and acceptable
contaminant level(s) for each exposure route. These objectives are based on available information
and standards such as ARARs and risk-based levels established in the risk assessment.
A feasibility study serves as the mechanism for the development, screening, and detailed
evaluation of remedial alternatives for all environmental media affected at a site. Because only
one contaminated environmental medium, ground water, is addressed by this operable unit, it was
appropriate to conduct a "focused" feasibility study to evaluate alternatives which address only
the ground water.
A Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) for ground water remediation was completed in February 1994
and established the objectives of a ground water remedial action, which include:
Prevent exposure, due to ground water ingestion, to ground water contaminants
attributable to the SMC facility which have been detected at levels exceeding
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs);
Prevent migration of ground water contamination; and
Remediate the ground water contamination attributable to the SMC facility to achieve
ARARs.
VIII. DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA §121(bXl)» 42 U.S.C. §9621 (b)(1), mandates that a remedial action must be protective
of human health and the environment, cost effective, and utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. Section 121(bXl) also establishes a preference for remedial actions which employ,
as a principal element, treatment to permanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity,
or mobility of the hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants at a site. CERCLA § 121(d),
42 U.S.C. §9621(d), further specifies that a remedial action must attain a level or standard of
control of the hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants, which at least attains ARARs
under federal and state laws, unless a waiver can be justified pursuant to CERCLA §121(dX4),
42 U.S.C. §9621(d)(4).
12
-------
This ROD evaluates, in detail, three (3) remedial alternatives including a number of extraction,
treatment and discharge options for addressing the ground water contamination associated with
the SMC site. With the exception of the "no action" alternative, the goal of each of the
alternatives is to remediate the entire contaminant plume attributable to SMC, to reach the
NJGWQC, and the Federal and State MCLs. The remedial alternatives are described individually
below, however, two issues require explanation.
The "time to implement" a remedial alternative reflects only the time required to construct or
implement the remedy and does not include the time required to design the remedy, procure
contracts for design and construction, or conduct operation and maintenance at the site.
At the time of this Record of Decision, updated surface water discharge standards have not yet
been established for a ground water treatment system. Once established, however, the updated
discharge to surface water standards may be stricter than existing standards. Therefore,
supplemental treatment technologies which could meet the potentially stricter updated standards
were included in the remedial evaluation.
The following are the descriptions of the remedial alternatives:
Alternative 1 - No Action:
Capital Cost: SO
Annual Operation and Maintenance (O & M) Cost: SO
Total Present Worth Cost: S48,000
Time to Implement: None
The Superfund program requires that the "no action" alternative be considered as a baseline
for comparison of other alternatives. The "no action" alternative requires no remedial actions
to reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of existing ground water contamination. The well
restriction area will continue to provide a means of limiting the exposure of residents in
downgradient areas to the ground water contaminants; however, no protection against
continued downgradient contaminated ground water migration would be provided. Because
this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-site above levels that allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, CERCLA requires that the site be reviewed every
five years. If justified by the five-year review, additional remedial actions may be
implemented to remove or treat contamination. The cost of one round of ground water
monitoring prior to conducting a five-year review of the "no action" decision is included in
this alternative.
Alternative 2 - ACO-Required Ground Water Restoration:
Capital Cost: $0
Annual O & M Cost: $1,300,000
Total Present Worth Cost: S16,000,000
Time to Implement: 12 Months
13
-------
Alternative 2 consists of the ACO-required ground water restoration and monitoring
programs, including operation of the existing five well extraction system at an extraction rate
of 400 gpm, the ion exchange/air stripping treatment system and discharge of treated ground
water to surface water, continuation of the ground water monitoring program, and
enforcement of the well restriction area.
In ion exchange, contaminant ions exchange with other ions as the contaminated ground
water flows through special resins. As the available ions in the resins are replaced by the
contaminant ions, the effectiveness of the system is reduced and the resins require
regeneration. The resins are regenerated on-site using acid and caustic solutions and reused
in the system. The regenerant solutions are also treated on-site with the resulting sludge and
"brine" disposed off-site as hazardous wastes. The combination of technical problems and
compliance issues associated with the ion exchange system prevented attainment of the 400
gpm treatment rate, the result was reduced treatment at approximately 200 gpm. The existing
air stripper would continue to treat VOC contamination. Air stripping technology is
described under Alternative 3, Option T2, below.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-site, CERCLA requires
that the site be reviewed every five years. If justified by the five-year review, additional
remedial actions may be implemented to remove or treat the contamination.
Alternative 3 - Modified Ground Water Restoration:
Alternative 3 consists of a modified ground water restoration program including an amended
combination of extraction, treatment, supplemental treatment (as necessary) and discharge
technologies. The development of this alternative was based on the re-evaluation of the existing
extraction system (including well locations, screened intervals, and individual well extraction rates
to optimize the capture of contaminated ground water), the treatment system (to determine the
best means of reliably treating the design influent rate), a supplemental treatment system (to
ensure that the treated ground water meets updated discharge to surface water ARARs), and the
discharge system (to determine the most appropriate means for discharging the effluent). The
FFS evaluated the different extraction, treatment, supplemental treatment and discharge options
separately. It included two (2) extraction options, eight (8) treatment options, four (4)
supplemental treatment options, and three (3) discharge options. Treatment options were divided
between those effective for organic contaminants and those effective for inorganic contaminants.
Supplemental treatment options addressed inorganic contaminants and were considered as a
polishing step in the event that additional treatment of the ground water is necessary to comply
with the updated discharge to surface water standards.
All options were retained for detailed analysis with the exception of two (2) treatment options
which were screened out because of cost or effectiveness as compared to the other options. Of
the six (6) treatment options retained for detailed analysis, three (3) options address VOC removal
and three (3) address inorganics removal from ground water. A summary of each of the options
retained for further analysis is presented below.
14
-------
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-site, CERCLA requires that
the site be reviewed every five years. If justified by the five-year review, additional remedial
actions may be implemented to remove or treat the contamination.
Alternative 3 - Option El - Existing Extraction System
Capital Cost: S25,000
Annual O & M Cost: S27,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $360,000
Time to Implement: Minimal
Option El consists of ground water extraction at a rate of approximately 400 gpm using
the existing five well extraction system with one additional deep extraction well to be
paired with existing well RIW2, the southwestern-most extraction well (see Figure 5).
Alternative 3 - Option E2 - Modified Extraction System
Capital Cost: S J06,000
Annual O & M Cost: S27,000
Total Present Worth Cost: S440,000
Time to Implement: 12 Months
Option E2 is based upon ground water modeling and consists of using the five existing
extraction wells with one additional deep well and three additional shallow wells to
improve the performance of the extraction system at a pumping rate of approximately
400 gpm. The deep well will provide capture of the ground water contamination in the
lower Cohansey Sand and is paired with the existing shallow recovery well RIW2. The
shallow wells are located near potential contamination source areas on-site to provide
capture of some of the highest concentrations of chromium, minimizing the potential for
additional dispersion and diffusion before extraction. The locations of the existing and
proposed wells are shown on Figure 9. Additional shallow and/or deep wells may be
required to address the potential discharge of contaminated ground water to the Hudson
Branch.
Alternative 3 - Option T2 - Air Stripping
Capital Cost: $0 _
Annual O & M Cost: $14,000
Total Present Worth Cost: S170,000
Time to Implement: None
Option T2 involves the treatment of organic ground water contaminants using the
existing air stripper. In air stripping, VOCs are removed by forcing a stream of air
through the extracted ground water. The contaminants are evaporated into the air
stream. Initial calculations indicate that vapor phase treatment is not required before the
air is released into the atmosphere, however, vapor phase treatment may be required if
15
-------
monitoring of the recovered ground water reveals significant increases in the VOC
concentration.
Alternative 3 - Option T3 - Carbon Adsorption
Capital Cost: $290,000
Annual O&M Cost: $100,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $1,500,000
Time to Implement: 8 Months
Option T3 involves the treatment of organic ground water contaminants using carbon
adsorption. In carbon adsorption, VOCs are removed by forcing the extracted ground
water through units containing activated carbon which attracts and retains the
contaminants. When spent, the carbon units are sent off-site for regeneration, which
thermally destroys the adsorbed contaminants allowing the carbon to be reused. The
carbon adsorption units may also act as filters in removing suspended inorganic
contaminants.
Alternative 3 - Option T4 - Ultraviolet (UV) Oxidation
Capital Cost: $860,000
Annual O&M Cost: $400,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $5,800,000
Time to Implement: 12 Months
Option T4 involves the treatment of extracted organic ground water contaminants using
UV oxidation. UV oxidation is a process in which UV light and hydrogen peroxide
chemically oxidize VOCs dissolved in water. UV oxidation has many operation and
maintenance (O&M) requirements, including UV lamp cleaning and replacement, and
maintenance of the hydrogen peroxide supply. The toxicity of the contaminants is
reduced without significant treatment residues generated by the process. UV oxidation
systems are not as readily available as air strippers or carbon adsorption units.
Alternative 3 - Option T6 - Coagulation/Flocculation
Capital Cost: $140,000
Annual O&M Cost: $2,300,000 _
Total Present Worth Cost: $29,000,000
Time to Implement: 9 Months
Option T6 involves the pretreatment of inorganic ground water contaminants using
chemical coagulation and flocculation, followed by treatment with the existing ion
exchange system. Coagulation is a process which involves the reduction of electrostatic
surface charges, causing the contaminant particles to flocculate (adhere together) and
precipitate (settle out). A sludge is generated that requires waste classification and off-
site disposal. Preliminary treatability studies using this process prior to treatment by the
ion exchange system resulted in only marginal success.
16
-------
Alternative 3 - Option T7 - Membrane Microflltration
Capital Cost: $730,000
Annual O & M Cost: $1,600,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $21,000,000
Time to Implement: 12 Months
Option T7 involves the pretreatment of inorganic ground water contaminants using
membrane microflltration, followed by treatment with the existing ion exchange system.
Membrane microflltration is a physical process for removing undissolved inorganic
contaminants from the ground water. Filtered solids accumulate on the membrane
forming a filter cake that requires waste classification and off-site disposal. A
treatability study was conducted that concluded that this pretreatment would not be
effective for all of the extraction wells, as the water quality varies from well to well.
Alternative 3 - Option T8 - Electrochemical Treatment
Capital Cost: SO
Annual O & M Cost: $500,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $6,200,000
Time to Implement: None
Option T8 involves the treatment of inorganic ground water contaminants by an
electrochemical treatment process. In this system, an electric current is passed through
iron electrodes placed in a tank of extracted ground water to produce ferrous (iron) ions
and to break down the water to hydrogen gas and hydroxy! ions. The reaction results
in the precipitation of inorganic contaminants. After exiting the electrochemical
treatment cell, the treated ground water enters a degassing unit where the hydrogen gas
is allowed to effervesce from the liquid. The precipitated solids are dewatered in a filter
press. The resultant sludge requires waste classification and off-site disposal. Also, to
remove the small amounts of solids that do not settle, the ground water may be further
treated with a multi-media filtering system.
In addition to removing the hydrogen gas, the degassing process may provide removal
of the volatile organic contaminants from the extracted ground water.
The electrochemical treatment system was constructed* on-site in 1992 at a cost of
$1,500,000.
Alternative 3 - Supplemental Treatment - Ion Exchange
Capital Cost: $150,000
Annual O & M Cost: $500,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $6,400,000
Time to Implement: 12 Months
17
-------
This option ihvolves additional treatment of the already treated ground water using the
existing ion exchange system. The process of ion exchange was already discussed under
Alternative 2, above. The brine from the resin regeneration and the sludge require waste
classification and off-site disposal. Treatability testing indicated that it may be possible
to use the existing ion exchange system as a supplemental treatment process to remove
chromium and total dissolved solids (TDS), if necessary to meet updated discharge to
surface water ARARs.
Alternative 3 - Supplemental Treatment - Reverse Osmosis
Capital Cost: $1,000,000
Annual O & M Cost: $300,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $4,700,000
Time to Implement: 20 Months
Osmosis is the spontaneous flow of water from a weak solution through a semi-
permeable membrane to a more concentrated solution.. Reverse osmosis is the
application of enough pressure to the concentrated solution to overcome the osmotic
pressure and force the net flow of water through the membrane toward the weak
solution. This allows contaminants to build up on one side of the membrane while
relatively pure water passes through. Advantages of supplemental treatment using
reverse osmosis are the potential removal of chromium and TDS to meet updated
discharge to surface water ARARs, if necessary. However, a number of disadvantages
exist, such as disposal of a relatively large quantity of a concentrated liquid waste
stream.
Alternative 3 - Supplemental Treatment - Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration
Capital Cost: $700,000 to $1,000,000
Annual O & M Cost: $ J00,000 to $500,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $1,900,000 to $7,200,000
Time to Implement: 12 Months
In general, both of these are physical processes for removal of contaminants, with
ultrafiltration capable of removing smaller particles than microflltration. However,
neither is capable of removing metal ions without pr£treatment. Since this option
involves the use of microfiltration/ultrafiltration as a supplemental treatment step, the
need for pretreatment should not be an issue. A residual filter cake is generated that
requires waste classification and off-site disposal. Available vendor information
indicates that removal of chromium to very low levels may be achievable with this
technology as a supplemental treatment step.
18
-------
Alternative 3 - Supplemental Treatment
Capital Cost: $100,000
Annual O & M Cost: $140,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $1,800,000
Time to Implement: 9 Months
Modification of Electrochemical Treatment
This option involves relatively simple modifications to the electrochemical treatment
system to increase its efficiency to meet updated discharge to surface water ARARs, if
necessary. These modifications may include the installation of additional treatment cells
or increasing the electric current to produce and maintain an excess of ferrous (iron)
ions. A disadvantage is the increased consumption of iron electrodes resulting in
increased sludge generation. The sludge requires waste classification and off-site
disposal.
Alternative 3 - Option D1 - Discharge to Ground Water
Capital Cost: $240,000
Annual O & M Cost: $220,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $3,000,000
Time to Implement: 18 Months
Option D1 involves the recharge of treated ground water back to the ground. A
recharge system consisting of two open basins is proposed based upon ground water
modeling. The combined area of the proposed basins is approximately five acres. Use
of the basins could result in flushing the shallow ground water contaminants more
rapidly towards the extraction wells, thus reducing the remediation time frame.
However, the basins must be maintained to prevent loss of effectiveness due to clogging.
Also, this option requires the installation and monitoring of a network of monitoring
wells, to ensure the efficient operation of the system.
Alternative 3 - Option D2 - Discharge to Surface Water
Capital Cost: $0
Annual O & M Cost: $210,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $2,600,000
Time to Implement: None
Option D2 involves the discharge of treated ground water to surface water, which in this
case is the Hudson Branch. Ground water would be discharged directly via the existing
discharge pipe to existing Outfall 001 (see Figure 9).
Alternative 3 Option D3 - Combined Discharge to Surface Water and Ground Water
Capital Cost: $240,000
Annual O & M Cost: $250,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $3,300,000
Time to Implement: 18 Months
19
-------
Option D3 involves the discharge of treated ground water to both surface water and
ground water. The existing surface water discharge system would be utilized, but
construction of the discharge basins and a ground water monitoring system would be
required. The basins require physical maintenance to prevent clogging and a network
of monitoring wells to ensure efficient operation.
IX. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
In selecting a remedy, NJDEP considered the factors set out in CERCLA §121,42 U.S.C. §9621,
by conducting a detailed analysis of the viable remedial alternatives pursuant to the NCP, 40 CFR
§300.430{eX9) and OSWER Directive 93SS.3-01. The detailed analysis consisted of an
assessment of the individual alternatives against each of nine evaluation criteria and a comparative
analysis focusing upon the relative performance of each alternative against those criteria.
The following "threshold" criteria must be satisfied by any alternative in order to be eligible for
selection:
Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether or not a
remedy provides adequate protection and describes how risks posed through each
exposure pathway (based on a reasonable maximum exposure scenario) are
eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or
institutional controls.
Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy would meet all of the
applicable (legally enforceable), or relevant and appropriate (requirements that pertain
to situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at a Superfund site such that
their use is well suited to the site) requirements of federal and state environmental
statutes and requirements or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
The following "primary balancing" criteria are used to make comparisons and to identify the
major trade-offs between alternatives:
Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain
reliable protection of human health and the environment over time, once cleanup
goals have been met It also addresses the magnitude and effectiveness of the
measures that may be required to manage the risk posed by treatment residuals and/or
untreated wastes.
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume via treatment refers to a remedial
technology's expected ability to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous
substances, pollutants or contaminants at the site.
20
-------
Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve protection
and any adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed
during the construction and implementation periods until cleanup goals are achieved.
Implementabilitv refers to the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy,
including the availability of materials and services needed.
Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs, and the present-
worth costs.
The following "modifying11 criteria are considered fully after the formal public comment period
on the Proposed Plan is complete:
EPA acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the RI/FS report and the
Proposed Plan, the EPA supports, opposes, and/or has identified any reservations with
the preferred alternative..
Community acceptance refers to the public's general response to the alternatives
described in the Proposed Plan and the RI/FS reports. Factors of community
acceptance to be discussed include support, reservation, and opposition by the
community.
A comparative analysis of the remedial alternatives based upon the evaluation criteria noted above
follows.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 3 provides protection of human health and the environment because it provides active
restoration of contaminated ground water through an optimized extraction, treatment and
discharge system. Alternative 2 does not provide protection of human health because the ion
exchange/air stripping system cannot be operated in a manner which provides optimum restoration
of ground water quality. The configuration of the existing extraction system is not sufficient to
address the ground water contamination in potential source areas on-site or in the lower Cohansey
Sand in the vicinity of existing recovery well R1W2. Also^the ion exchange system operates
below design specifications because of naturally occurring inorganics in the ground water and the
system is not capable of attaining the current discharge to surface water ARARs. Alternative 1
provides no protection of human health and the environment from the continued migration of
ground water contamination.
For the ground water extraction options of Alternative 3, Option E2, use of a modified extraction
system, provides protection through the use of additional wells to provide added capture of the
contaminated ground water in potential source areas and in the lower Cohansey Sand in the
vicinity of existing recovery well RIW2. Option El is not protective because it does not
21
-------
effectively address all of the contamination. Additional shallow and/or deep wells may be
required to address the potential discharge of contaminated ground water to the Hudson Branch.
All three organic treatment options of Alternative 3, Options T2, air stripping, T3, carbon
adsorption, and T4, UV oxidation, will provide protection of human health and the environment
Emissions from the air stripping unit do not require treatment. Significant increases in VOC
levels that could require treatment of the air emissions would be detected by the monitoring of
extracted ground water.
For the inorganic treatment options of Alternative 3, Option T8, electrochemical treatment, is
expected to provide the greatest degree of inorganic treatment and, therefore, is protective of
human health and the environment. Option T7, membrane micro filtration, is also expected to
provide protection, while Option T6, coagulation/flocculation, is not.
For the supplemental treatment options of Alternative 3, which will be employed as necessary
to meet updated discharge to surface water ARARs, modification of the electrochemical treatment
system and ion exchange are protective of human health and the environment since treatability
studies have shown that chemical specific ARARs can be achieved. Electrochemical treatment
generates a non-hazardous sludge. Reverse osmosis and microfiltration/ultrafiltration are
protective but they generate a large quantity of a concentrated waste stream and require
pretreatment, respectively.
All three discharge options for Alternative 3, are protective of human health and the environment
because only ground water treated to meet updated ARARs will be discharged.
Compliance with ARARs
Alternative 3 will comply with ARARs. Depending on the extraction and treatment technologies
chosen for this alternative, compliance with chemical-specific ARARs for ground water and
treated water discharge is expected. The remedial technologies will also comply with action-
specific ARARs. Alternatives 1 and 2 will not achieve chemical-specific ARARs.
For the ground water extraction options of Alternative 3, Option E2, modified extraction system,
will comply with chemical-specific ARARs for ground water by providing capture of shallow and
deep ground water contamination attributable to SMC to meet health-based levels. Option El
will not comply with chemical-specific ARARs because it will not capture contaminated ground
water downgradient of existing extraction well RIW2 or south of the facility. Both options will
comply with action-specific ARARs, such as water allocation regulations and well installation
permit requirements.
All of the organic treatment options of Alternative 3 will comply with chemical- and action-
specific ARARs. For Option T2, the air stripper will be in compliance with the air discharge
regulations. For Option T3, handling and treatment of the spent carbon will be conducted in
compliance with the appropriate hazardous waste management regulations. Option T4, UV
22
-------
oxidation, produces no residues which require handling. The treated water will meet the updated
discharge to surface water ARARs.
For the inorganic treatment options of Alternative 3, Option T8, electrochemical treatment, may
' comply with chemical-specific ARARs without supplemental treatment. However, supplemental
treatment may be required to meet the updated discharge to surface water ARARs. Option T7,
membrane microfiltration, will not cemply with chemical-specific ARARs without supplemental
treatment. Option T6, coagulation/floccuiation will not comply with chemical-specific ARARs.
Operation of any of the treatment systems will be in compliance with action-specific ARARs.
For the supplemental treatment options of Alternative 3, compliance with chemical-specific
ARARs is achievable using the ion exchange system. Modification of the electrochemical system
may not provide sufficient removal of TDS. Reverse osmosis may provide removal of
contaminants, but treatability testing is required. Microfiltration/ultrafiltration does not treat
dissolved contaminants.
All discharge options will comply with chemical- and action-specific ARARs, which include at
a minimum, the Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria. Option D2 uses an existing surface
water discharge system and, therefore, no location-specific requirements are applicable to its
implementation. Options D1 and D3 would have to be designed in accordance with floodplain,
wetland and farmland protection requirements.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 3 Mill provide the greatest long-term effectiveness and permanence through
optimization of the ground water restoration program. This alternative minimizes residual risk
within the shortest time frame by providing extraction, treatment, and discharge of ground water.
Alternative 2 is less effective since ground water extraction and treatment are provided at a
reduced rate. Exposure risks are limited to some extent due to the existence of the well
restriction area downgradient of the facility. Long-term monitoring provides a means of
continued evaluation of ground water quality. Alternative 1 is the least effective since no ground
water treatment is provided and no protection against potential exposures is provided, except for
the well restriction area. A five-year review is required for all three alternatives since the ground
water contamination will not be completely remediated within five years.
For the ground water extraction options of Alternative 3, Option E2, modified extraction system,
provides the greatest long-term effectiveness since it provides extraction of shallow and deep
contaminated ground water as well as capture nearer to the potential source(s). It is more likely
to achieve ground water ARARs within a shorter time frame than Option El and, thereby requires
less long-term operation and maintenance (O&M).
For the organic treatment options of Alternative 3, Option T2, air stripping, is expected to have
the greatest long-term effectiveness because it treats contaminated ground water on a continual
basis, with no residual handling or potential for contaminant breakthrough. Option T3, carbon
23
-------
adsorption, is also expected to be effective. Residual risks are expected to be minimal based on
the regeneration and thermal destruction of contaminants adsorbed to the carbon. Option T4, UV
oxidation, also results in the destruction of contaminants; however, it requires a greater amount
of monitoring during the treatment process to ensure that treatment is achieved.
For the inorganic treatment options, the greatest long-term effectiveness is offered by Option T8,
electrochemical treatment, because it provides the greatest degree of contaminant level reduction
based upon the treatability studies and operational data. Option 17, membrane microfiltration,
is also expected to provide a significant degree of treatment although effluent levels may not be
as low as those measured for Option T8. Option T6, coagulation/flocculation, is expected to
provide the least degree of long-term effectiveness. All three of these options produce a residual
sludge which requires off-site disposal. Option T7 would create the least amount of sludge
because it requires no chemical addition.
For the supplemental treatment options, modification of the electrochemical treatment system and
the ion exchange system provide the greatest long-term effectiveness, with the ion exchange
system potentially offering better compliance with updated discharge to surface water ARARs for
chromium and TDS. Reverse osmosis is less effective because of the membrane's susceptibility
to clogging and microbial attack and sensitivity to system upsets. Microfiltration/ultrafiltration
is least effective since it is not capable of removing dissolved contaminants. Electrochemical
treatment generates a non-hazardous sludge, while the other options generate sludges that are
hazardous.
For the discharge options, Option D2, discharge to surface water, has the greatest long-term
effectiveness due to its relative ease of implementation and operation. Long-term O&M would
be minimal. It is followed by Option D3, which offers flexibility in terms of operation due to
its two discharge scenarios. Option D3 could also provide a degree of hydraulic control via
discharge to ground water. Option D1 also provides a degree of hydraulic control but its long-
term effectiveness may be affected by potential operational problems such as silting of discharge
basins. Also, additional site characterization would be required to confirm the ability of the
proposed system to discharge to ground water at the assumed recharge rates.
Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume
Alternative 3 provides the greatest reduction of toxicity,'mobility and volume through the
optimization of a modified ground water restoration system. Alternative 2 also provides ground
water restoration, but not to the same degree because of the lower extraction rates and use of the
existing extraction wells. Alternative 1 does not provide any reduction in toxicity, mobility or
volume.
For the ground water extraction options for Alternative 3, Option E2, modified extraction system,
will provide the greatest reduction in mobility by utilizing extraction wells optimally placed to
provide capture of identified ground water contamination close to potential source(s). Option El
will not provide the same degree of contaminant capture using the existing extraction wells.
24
-------
For the organic treatment options, Options T3, carbon adsorption, and T4, UV oxidation, provide
the greatest protection against the contaminants of concern, with the contaminants ultimately
destroyed. Under Option T2, air stripping, the contaminants are not destroyed by the treatment
process itself, but they are removed from the ground water prior to discharge, thereby reducing
the toxicity of the ground water. Initial calculations indicate that the air emissions do not require
treatment prior to release to the atmosphere, but if monitoring data shows otherwise, an air
treatment unit would be required.
For the inorganic treatment options, all options produce a sludge requiring off-site disposal.
Option T8, electrochemical treatment, is expected to provide the greatest reduction of toxicity by
providing the greatest degree of removal of inorganic contamination from the extracted ground
water. Option T7, membrane microfiltration, is expected to be effective in the removal of
inorganic contaminants which previously fouled the operation of the existing ion exchange but
will require supplemental treatment to meet toxicity reduction requirements. For Option T6,
coagulation/flocculation, initial studies have indicated that it may not be effective in reducing the
toxicity of inorganic contaminants sufficiently to meet updated discharge requirements.
All supplemental treatment options produce a sludge requiring off-site disposal. Modification of
the electrochemical system is expected to be most effective at reducing the toxicity of the
extracted ground water and it generates a non-hazardous sludge. The ion exchange system is also
expected to be effective at reducing toxicity, but it generates a hazardous sludge. Reverse
osmosis and micro-filtration/ultrafiltration are less effective at reducing toxicity because'both are
physical separation processes that may not remove dissolved contamination.
The discharge options generally have no effect on the toxicity or volume of contaminated ground
water, although they may provide some control over contaminant migration. Option Dl,
discharge to ground water, could potentially enhance the control of contaminant migration by
flushing contaminants towards the extraction wells. Option D3 could also provide this effect.
Option D2, discharge to surface water, would have little or no impact.
Short-Term Effectiveness
None of the three alternatives result in significant risks to workers, the adjacent community or
the environment as a result of the implementation. Therefore, short-term achievement of remedial
response objectives provides the main determination of short-term effectiveness.
Alternative 3, which provides an enhanced ground water extraction and treatment system with
minimal associated risks and environmental impacts, is considered to offer the greatest short-term
effectiveness. Alternative 2, which also provides ground water treatment but at a lower extraction
and treatment rate, does not provide the same degree of short-term effectiveness as Alternative
3. Alternative 1 is not effective in the short term.
For the ground water extraction options of Alternative 3, Option El, the existing extraction
system, provides the greatest short-term effectiveness since it requires installation of only one
25
-------
deep extraction well. Implementation of Option E2 requires the installation of one deep and three
shallow extraction wells and associated piping. Once operating, however, it would become more
effective than Option El in meeting the remedial response objectives because it would provide
additional downgradient capture of shallow chromium-contaminated ground water as well as
capture of contamination within a shorter time ihune, closer to the potential contaminant
source(s).
For the organic treatment options of Alternative 3, all treatment options are expected to achieve
remedial response objectives within comparable time frames. Option T2, air stripping, is
expected to have the greatest short-term effectiveness, and because it has already been installed
on-site, there are few risks posed by its implementation. Option T2 is followed by Option T3,
carbon absorption, a readily available treatment technology that could be quickly employed, and
which results in no emissions on-site, thereby presenting minimal risks to the workers, the
community or the environment Option T4 provides for the destruction of most contaminants but,
because UV oxidation systems are not as widely available as the other types of units, short-term
implementation may not be as easily attained and potential technical problems may arise when
implemented.
Of the inorganic treatment options of Alternative 3, Option T6, coagulation/flocculation, is more
commercially available than Options T7 or T8, allowing rapid implementation. However, initial
treatability studies indicate Option T6 may not be as effective as T8, electrochemical treatment,
in meeting short-term remedial objectives.
The supplemental treatment options which involve modification to the electrochemical treatment
system or ion exchange are readily available since both already exist on-site. Reverse osmosis
and microfiltration/ultrafiltration require design and pilot scale development before meeting the
short-term remedial objectives.
For the discharge options of Alternative 3, Option D2, discharge to surface water, has the greatest
short-term effectiveness, due to its relative ease of implementation based on the existing discharge
piping. It is followed by Options D3 and Dl, both of which require construction of a recharge
system.
ImplementabUity
Alternative 1, "no action", is the most easily implemented, involving no implementation activities
other than one round of ground water monitoring prior to the five-year review. Alternative 2 is
also easily implemented because the components are already existing. Alternative 3 is the least
easily implemented, but still relatively easy to implement.
For the ground water extraction options for Alternative 3, Option El is the most easily
implemented because it involves the use of the existing extraction system plus only one additional
well. Option E2 requires the installation of four additional extraction wells but is still technically
feasible to implement. The administrative implementability of both options is good.
26
-------
For the organic treatment options, Option T2, air stripping, is expected to be the most easily
implemented since an existing air stripper is available on-site. O&M requirements are limited
to blower maintenance and discharge monitoring. Option T3, carbon adsorption, is less easily
implemented because a new system must be installed; however, the technology is readily available
and easily set-up. Its O&M requirements include replacement and handling of spent carbon.
Option T4, UV oxidation, is the least easily implemented based on its more limited availability,
additional O&M requirements, and greater potential for implementation problems.
For the inorganic treatment options, Option T8, electrochemical treatment, is most easily
implemented since an electrochemical treatment system has already been constructed on site.
Option T6, coagulation/flocculation, is also relatively easily implemented, based on the
availability of unit treatment processes. Option T7, membrane microfiltration, is not as widely
available. All options generate a residual sludge which requires handling. The administrative
feasibility may be affected by the sludges if they are classified as hazardous waste, otherwise, the
administrative implementability for all three options is good.
For the supplemental treatment options, modification of the electrochemical treatment system is
the most easily implemented, although additional filtering capability may be required. The
existing ion exchange system requires resin replacement and a physical connection to the
treatment unit. Reverse osmosis and microfiltration/ultrafiltration require design and pilot testing
before construction of the units. The administrative implementability for all options is good.
For the discharge options, Option D2, discharge to surface water, has the greatest technical
implementability because the piping already exists. Options D1 and D3 are less technically
implementable based on the significant flow rate which must be handled and demonstrated
operational problems associated with discharges to ground water. Administrative
implementability is the same for all three discharge options, in that all must comply with
regulatory requirements.
Cost
Alternative 1, "no action", which consists of a round of ground water monitoring at the time of
the five-year review and continued enforcement of the well restriction area, is the least expensive
alternative, with a present worth of $48,000. Alternative 2, the ACO required ground water
restoration, has a present worth of $16,000,000. Alternative 3, consisting of a combination of
extraction, treatment and discharge technologies, has a present worth ranging from $9,300,000
to $39,000,000, depending on the options selected and not including the costs of supplemental
treament. The present worth of each option is presented below.
The two ground water extraction options, which both include ground water monitoring for five
years, have a present worth of $360,000 for Option El, the existing system; and $440,000 for
Option E2, the modified system.
27
-------
The present worth for the organic treatment options are $170,000 for Option T2, air stripper;
$1,500,000 for Option T3, carbon adsorption; and $5,800,000 for Option T4, UV oxidation.
The present worth for the inorganic treatment options are $6,200,000 for Option T8,
electrochemical treatment; $21,000,000 for Option T7, membrane microfiltration; and
$29,000,000 for Option T6, coagulation/flocculation.
The present worth for the supplemental treatment options are $1,800,000 for modification to
electrochemical treatment; $4,700,000 for reverse osmosis; $6,400,000 for ion exchange; and
$1,900,000 to $7,200,000 for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
The present worth for the discharge options are $2,600,000 for Option D2, discharge to surface
water; $3,000,000 for Option Dl, discharge to ground water; and $3,300,000 for Option D3,
combined discharge to surface and ground water.
EPA Acceptance
The EPA concurs with the selected remedy.
Community Acceptance
Based upon the concerns and comments received during the public comment period and public
meeting, it appears that the community accepts the preferred alternative as presented in the
Proposed Plan. The concern and comments are presented in the Responsiveness Summary which
is included in Appendix A.
X. SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon an evaluation of the various alternatives and extraction, treatment and discharge
options, NJDEP recommends Alternative 3, Modified Ground Water Restoration. Under this
alternative, the following extraction, treatment, and discharge options are recommended for
implementation to remediate the entire contaminant plume to NJGWQC, and Federal and State
MCLs:
Option E2 - Modified Extraction System
Option T2 - Air Stripping
Option T8 - Electrochemical Treatment with Supplemental Treatment (as required)
Option D2 - Discharge to Surface Water
Alternative 3 will consist of implementation of a modified ground water extraction system in
which one deep and three shallow extraction wells will be installed to supplement the existing
extraction system. This will allow for capture of shallow and deep contaminated ground water
while also providing for the extraction of shallow contaminated ground water nearer the potential
source(s) of contamination to more quickly attain ARARs. The configuration of the modified
28
-------
extraction system is based on ground water modeling presented in the FFS; however, the exact
number and locations of the extraction wells may be modified based on the additional data
collected as part of the design phase of the project The extraction system will be designed to
capture VOC contamination attributable to the SMC facility and to address the potential discharge
of contaminated ground water to Hudson Branch. Ground water will be extracted at a rate of
approximately 400 gpm. Upon monitoring of the extraction system operation, some variation in
the proposed extraction rates may be implemented to achieve the desired extraction results.
The additional capital cost for implementing Options E2, T2, T8 and D2 of Alternative 3 is
$106,000, the annual O&M is $750,000 and the present worth is $9,400,000. ;
Electrochemical treatment provides for removal of inorganic contaminants, with achievement of
much lower chromium effluent levels than the existing ion exchange system was capable of
achieving. The electrochemical system will be used as the sole inorganic treatment method if
updated discharge to surface water limits can be achieved. If the updated discharge limitations
are not achievable, supplemental treatment, by either modification of the electrochemical
treatment system, or use of the existing ion exchange system, will be used as a means of
polishing the effluent prior to discharge. Bench and/or full scale studies will be conducted to
determine which option will be used. Similarly, the degassing process in the electrochemical
treatment system has the potential to provide removal of the VOCs from the contaminated ground
water. The ground water will be treated using the existing air stripper to ensure that the VOCs
are removed. Sludge is generated that requires waste classification and off-site disposal.
Currently, the operating system generates approximately 32 tons of sludge per month. The
modified system may generate a larger amount of sludge.
Discharge to surface water is the preferred method of treated ground water discharge, due to its
ease of implementation and its successful operational history. Alternative 3 will meet appropriate
surface water discharge limits developed for the protection of surface water bodies and specified
in the NJPDES permit Alternative 3 also includes continued ground water monitoring to confirm
its effectiveness in capturing the contaminated ground water. A Classification Exception Area
(CEA) will be established by NJDEP for the area of the aquifer impacted by the migrating
contaminant plume. The CEA will be defined as the area of the aquifer that is and will be
impacted above the applicable Ground Water Quality Standards. The CEA will remain in effect
until SMC documents that contaminant concentrations have decreased to the applicable Ground
Water Quality Standards. It is unlikely that the alternative will be successful in remediating the
ground water within a five-year period; therefore, because contaminants will remain on-site above
health-based levels, a five-year review of the selected remedy will be required.
XI. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under their legal authorities, NJDEP's and EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund sites is to
undertake remedial actions that achieve adequate protection of human health and the environment.
In addition, Section 121 of CERCLA establishes several other statutory requirements and
29
-------
preferences. These specify that when complete, the selected remedial action for this site must
comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate environmental standards established under
State and Federal environmental laws unless a statutory waiver is justified. The selected remedy
also must be cost effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies
to the maximum extent practicable. Finally, the statute includes a preference for remedies that
employ treatment that permanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of
hazardous wastes as their principal element.
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with State and
Federal requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements for the
remedial action (see Tables 3 and 4) and is cost effective. This remedy utilizes permanent
solutions and alternate treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable for this site.
This remedy will require the institution of a CEA. Because it is unlikely that the alternative will
be successful in remediating the ground water within a five year period, a review will be
conducted every five (S) years after commencement of the remedial action to ensure the remedy
continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
XII. DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
No significant changes were made to the Preferred Alternative subsequent to the public comment
period and public meeting.
30
-------
APPENDIX A
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
GROUND WATER OPERABLE UNIT
Shieldalloy Corporation
Newfield Borough, Gloucester County, New Jersey
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
GROUND WATER OPERABLE UNIT
Shieldalloy Corporation
Newfield Borough
Gloucester County, New Jersey
INTRODUCTION
A Responsiveness Summary is required by Superfund policy. It provides a summary of public's comments and
concerns received during the public comment period and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) responses to those comments and concerns.
All comments summarized in this document have been considered in the NJDEP final decision for selection of a
remedial alternative for the Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation (SMC) Superfund site.
OVERVIEW
NJDEP has selected a modified ground water restoration alternative for the ground water operable unit at the SMC
site. This alternative includes the following components:
Modified Ground Water Extraction System
Air Stripping
Electrochemical Treatment with Supplemental Treatment (as required)
Discharge to Surface Water
This alternative addresses contaminated ground water only. The contaminated soils, surface water and sediments
associated with this site will be addressed as a separate Operable Unit in the near future.
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY CONCERNS
Comments from the public comment period generally supported the remedial alternative chosen to remediate the
contaminated ground water. However, dissatisfaction with past practices of SMC and concern over their possible
health effects on the community was expressed.
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
The Remedial Investigation/Focused Feasibility Study (Rl/FFS) and the Proposed Plan for this site were released
to the public for comment on August 24, 1995. These documents were made available to the public in the
Administrative Record located at the NJDEP offices in Trenton, New Jersey, as well as in the local information
repositories located at the Newfield Borough Hall and the Newfield Borough Library. The notice of availability
for the above documents was published in the Daily Journal of Vineland on August 24, 1995. The public comment
period for these documents extended to September 25, 1995. On September 13, 1995 NJDEP conducted a public
meeting at the Marie D. Durand School, in Vineland, to inform local officials and interested citizens about the
Superfund process, to review the findings of the RI/FFS, to review current and proposed ground water remedial
activities at the site, and to respond to questions from area residents and other interested parties. A transcript of
the public meeting is provided as Appendix D.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The following is a summary of the comments provided at the public meeting as well as NJDEP's response to those
-------
comments and questions. It should be noted here that no written comments were received during the public
comment period. However, one NJDEP Meeting Evaluation Form was returned with a page of comments attached.
These comments have been attached to this Responsiveness Summary.
. 1. Comment/Question: Concerning the volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the ground water
treatment system, what levels are being released into the air? What level would require an air discharge
permit? I would like to receive a copy of the air release monitoring results.
Response: A permit for the VOC release from an air stripper is not required unless the concentration in
the water of each toxic volatile substance equals or exceeds 100 parts per billion (ppb) or the total
concentration of VOCs in the water equals or exceeds 3,500 ppb. SMC was issued an *ir pollution control
permit based on calculated concentrations of volatile organic compounds in the ground water that would
be entering the air stripper (influent). After five years of monthly monitoring of the influent by SMC, the
concentrations never exceeded the permit limits, so the permit was deemed unnecessary and terminated by
the NJDEP. When the modified extraction system is operational, more highly contaminated ground water
from source areas will be collected and the need for an air pollution control permit will be reevaluated.
For answers to more specific questions on air permitting Issues, please contact Vincent Garfoarino, Air A
Environmental Quality Program, Southern Region, at (609) 346-8071.
2. Comment/Question: The health risk assessment that was done by SMC's consultant, was that based on
contaminated residential wells?
Response: As required by the Superfund law, the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) was conducted
to determine the human health risks which could result from the ground water contamination if no remedial
action was taken. The HHRA was based on 1990 data from on-site monitoring wells collected during the
RL Data from the on-site wells were used because tbey contained the highest concentrations of ground
water contamination due to their proximity to source areas. This represents the worst case scenario for
ground water contamination. Using this data, the HHRA showed that present and future risk to the
surrounding human population drinking two liters of water per day for thirty yean and using the water for
bathing and showering was at an unacceptable level. Therefore, remediation at this site is needed and is,
in fact, already occurring. It must be remembered that the HHRA does not evaluate the risks associated
with past exposures to contamination; it evaluates the need for remedial action at the site to prevent future
exposures. The human health risk assessment is in the local repositories.
3. Comment/Question: Is the Cohansey Aquifer affected?
Response: Yes, the Cohansey Aquifer is affected by the Shieldalloy site. The Cohansey Aquifer lies
under most of southern New Jersey, Including the Newfield/Vineland area, and Is a m^or pan of the New
Jersey Costal Plain Sole Source Aquifer. Data from the R1 indicates that the VOC and inorganic
contamination in the Cohansey Aquifer is centered in the manufacturing area of SMC's property and
extends to the southwest. The distribution of the VOC and inorganic contamination in the shallow and deep
portions of the aquifer are shown in Figures 5 and 6.
4. Comment/Quest ion: Regarding installation of monitor wells on private property, why are the residents
not told why the wells are being installed on their land? Why don't the residents receive the data from the
investigations conducted on their land.
Response: The residents should be given a general explanation of the purpose of any investigations
conducted on their property. It is not NJDEP policy to send remedial investigation results to individual
2
-------
residents unless the results are from a direct route of exposure to contamination, such as a drinking water
well. The monitoring well is included in the Remedial Investigation/Focused Feasibility Study
(Rl/FFS) which may be found in the local repositories. However, in this case NJDEP will forward the
data to the property owner.
Comment/Question: When will the proposed remedial alternative go into effect? Will the residents
receive notice of when it does and will they receive a schedule of implementation?
Response: The major components of the preferred remedial alternative are already in place at the site with
the exception of the additional recovery wells as was discussed in the Proposed Plan. A notice will be sent
out when the final remedy is selected and documented in the Record of Decision. The Record of Decision
will be placed in the information repositories. The implementation schedule is part of the Administrative
Record and for easier public access will be placed in the information repositories. In addition, for this site
NJDEP will send the schedule to those interested parties that are on the mailing list.
Comment/Question: Will more public meetings be held for this site?
Response: The NJDEP will hold another public meeting for the second operable unit which will include
the preferred remedy for the soils, surface waters and the sediments. There is no plan at present to hold
another public meeting for the Operable Unit 1 ground water remediation.
Comment/Quest!on: What has the ground water data shown over time?
Response: The data from on- and off-site monitor wells shows that contaminant concentrations have been
drastically reduced over the years. For example, in 1990 - 1991, the maximum levels for chromium in
the on-site monitor wells were over 20,000 ppb; the most recent data taken in April 1995 are about 1,000
ppb. The existing system has also been effective at controlling down gradient migration of the contaminated
ground water. The additional recovery wells will improve the effectiveness.
Comment/Question: Was the human health risk assessment based just on the VOCs or were other
chemicals included?
Response: The Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) was based on all the chemicals considered to be
of health concern associated with the site. This included VOCs, as well as, numerous metals. As
previously stated, the HHRA is in the local repositories.
Comment/Question: Has a connection between past and/or current activities at Shieldalloy ever been
connected with health effects of residents?
Response: Such a study has not been conducted and, therefore ,-NJDEP cannot comment on this question.
However, the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Cpntrol (ATSDR), which assists the USEPA on
human health related issues, has completed two "Health Consultations" which are very limited in scope.
These reports only addressed cyanide in urine and blood samples of area residents and radionuclides in
environmental samples. The reports concluded that the concentrations do not pose a human health threat.
For additional information on the Health Consultations, please contact Mr. Arthur Block, ATSDR Region
II at (212) 637-4305.
Comment/Question: b it true that there may be other responsible parties besides Shieldalloy associated
with the VOC ground water contamination? Is it also true that SMC is the only such party that is involved
in remediation at this time?
3
-------
Response: Id letters dated November 2, 1995, NJDEP identified SMC and Fisher & Porter as responsible
for VOC contamination and the money spent by the New Jersey Spill fund for extending the water lines,
residential hookups and the air stripper on the municipal well affected. SMC has identified themselves as
a user of trichloroethcne (TCE) and NJDEP has extensive evidence that VOC contamination is emanating
from the Shieldalloy property. Fisher &. Porter identified themselves as users of tetrachloroethene (PCE).
At this time Shieldalloy is the only party actively cleaning up this contamination.
Comment/Question: The residents of New field Borough want a cancer cluster study conducted for the
area surrounding the Shieldalloy plant.
Response: For issues regarding cancer cluster studies, the residents of Newfield should contact the New
Jersey Department of Health, Environmental Health Services, 210 South Broad Street, Trenton, NJ 08625-
0360. The contact person is lames Pasqualo, who can be reached by telephone at (609) 984-2193. NJDEP
does not perform cancer cluster studies. NJDEP can, however, assist the Department of Health by
providing the information gathered from the various investigations performed pursuant to our regulations.
Comment/Question: Is Shieldalloy tied into the Newfield Municipal water supply?
Response: Yes, SMC is connected to the Newfield water system. However, SMC also uses treated
ground water for non-contact cooling purposes on site. SMC water draw from the municipal supply is
approximately 25 percent of what it was last year ago since they began recirculating the treated ground
water. That is, SMC uses roughly 6 million gallons of municipal water per quarter.
Comment/Question: The treated ground water that is discharged into the Hudson Branch, is it still
contaminated?
Response: The water discharged into the surface water has to meet strict permit requirements. These
requirements are stricter than drinking water standards because the organisms found in this stream may be
more sensitive to pollution than humans. So, if any levels of the contaminants remain in the water being
discharged, they are minute.
Comment/Question: Does the Borough of Newfield have a copy of the ATSDR Health Assessment done
for this site?
Response: It is the responsibility of ATSDR to provide to the Borough a copy of the Health Assessment
dated November 15, 1988 as well as the Site Review and Update dated September 28, 1992. However,
NJDEP will make sure these ait added to the local document repositories.
Comment/Question: The present administration at SMC seems to want to cooperate with cleaning up its
environmental problems. This effort is appreciated by the residents of Newfield. Past management of the
plant was uncooperative and secretive.
Response: The NJDEP notes this comment and would like to add that NJDEP also has a much improved
working relationship with the present Shieldalloy administration. Over the past year NJDEP and EPA have
been working closely with SMC, and through site visits and weekly telephone conferences the project is
proceeding quickly.
Comment/Question: It is the general feeling of the residents of Newfield that Shieldalloy has had long
term effects on the health of the residents.
Response: Comment noted.
-------
17. Comment/Question: Is any air monitoring conducted at the SMC site?
Response: Yes, air monitoring is conducted in accordance with the various air discharge permits held by
the facility for its manufacturing processes. The facility is inspected once a year to ensure compliance.
SMC is currently in compliance with these permits and has not been issued a violation for several years.
Comment attached to Meeting Evaluation Form from Ms. Pati Madden, resident, received by NJDEP
September 26, 1995.
18. . Comment/Question: While working on this case please remember - Most employees working on this case
from both NJDEP and members of Shieldalloy, have not worked for a very long time with this job.
What you have to understand is MOST of the residents in this area have beat here for years, generations
in fact. I myself, am a 4th generation with my children now making a 5th generation. We, the neighbors
and residents of the area, have been drinking this water and breathing this air for years.
So when your survey states 'A person would have to drink so much water a day for a certain amount of
years before they would be affected*, well, we have been doing exactly that, b is most definitely not a
comfortable feeling to realize that we are your statistics.
Also, you have to remember for years the residents of this area have beat lied to not only by the members
of Shieldalloy, but also by members of the NJDEP. To say we do not trust either organization would be
an understatement.
At the present time, it does seem that the State is pushing SMC to clean up their act, but h is still difficult
to give complete trust in the system.
1 truly believe that if we did not discover VOC's in our water, we would still be drinking well water,
because it's not the State's responsibility to notify residents of an area when there is a pollution problem,
and that is a very scary fact.
Response: NJDEP is aware of the residents' concerns ami frustrations regarding this site and
appreciates you comments. However, several points made in this comment warrant a response.
First, it was commented that the residents that live near the plant are the statistics used in risk M«wm«iu
While we do not wish to diminish the importance of this comment, nor the concern of the residents, it is
important to keep in mind that the time estimates used in health risk indicate the amount of
time it is estimated it would take to put an individual at risk of an effect from a pollutant. More simply,
for example, a risk assessment might state that a person drinking water with a specific contaminant in it
for thirty years would have an increased risk of an ailment, of a magnitude of, perhaps, one in a million.
The risk assessment does not mean to state that a person will get an ailment if they drink the contaminated
water for the time frame, but there is an increased risk present.
Second, it was commented that the NJDEP has lied to residents in the past. NJDEP is unaware of any
specific instances of deliberate misinformation. We apologize, if in the past, any incorrect information was
given out. It is NJDEP policy to be truthful and forthright with information to residents.
Third, it was commented that it is "difficult to trust the system*, given that you feel the NJDEP lied to
you in the past, this is understandable. It is hoped that as you see progress being made with the cleanup
of the SMC site, you will realize that it is the mission of NJDEP to ensure that the citizens of New Jersey
S
-------
have a clean environment to live and work in, and to pursue those who compromise the integrity of the
environment using state and federal regulations. Fortunately, the regulations also contain provisions for
community participation, of which this Responsiveness Summary is part. Citizens are encouraged to
provide comments and questions to the agencies regarding the investigations and cleanup of the site.
Unfortunately, the progress of cleaning up a site is not a quick one. There are many difficult decisions
to be made and the information needed to make sound decisions takes time to acquire.
Finally, it was stated that "it's not the State's responsibility to notify the residents...when there is a
pollution problem". This is not accurate. It is the NJDEP's responsibility to notify residents of a pollution
problem, when it may directly affect them, such as through potable well water. However, NJDEP must
know about the contamination in order to inform residents and take action to protect them from exposure.
In this case, NJDEP was in the process of investigating the VOC contamination in the 'ground water when
residents alerted the field office that they suspected their well water was contaminated. In addition, NJDEP
does not have the ability to sample every potable well in the state. We do recommend that any resident
who relies on a private potable well for his or her drinking water to sample the water for VOCs at least
every 1-2 years. The local health department also has some involvement with contaminated well issues.
So, to make the generalization that the citizens would "still be drinking [contaminated] well water" is not
true. NJDEP is aware of the resident's concerns and frustrations regarding this case.
6
-------
APPENDIX B
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
GROUND WATER OPERABLE UNIT
Shieldalloy Corporation
Newfield Borough, Gloucester County, New Jersey
-------
TABLE B-l
SUMMARY OF TOXICITY VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: ORAL
SHIELD ALLOY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION
Oral
Weight ol
Slope Factor
Evidence
Type
Baaiar
Conitituen!
fmo/ko-tfl-i
Ctiii
of Cancer
Source
MORQANICS
Aluminum
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Antimony
NA
D
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Arsenic (a)
1.5E*00
A
Skin
Water/IRIS
Barium
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Beryflium
4.3E*00
B2
Multiple Sites
Watec/IRIS
Boron
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Cadmium
NA
NA/IRIS, HEAST
Chromium 111
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Chromium VI
NA
A
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Cobalt
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Copper
NA
D
NA/IRIS,l«AST
Cyanide
NA
D
NA/IRIS,HAST
Fluoride
NA
NA/IRIS.KCAST
Lead
NA
B2
Kidney
OraVIRIS
Manganeee
NA
D
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Mercury
NA
D
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Nickel
NA
A
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Niobfcim
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Selenium
NA
D
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Silver
NA
D
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Sfronturn
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Titanium
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Vanadium
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Zinc
NA
D
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Zirconium
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
VOLAT1LES
Acetone
NA
D
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Banzene
1B0E-02
A
Neoplasia
Gavage/IRIS
Butanone, 2-
NA
D
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Carbon daulfide
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Chloroform
6.1E-03
B2
Kidney
Water/1 R1S
Cfctoromelhane
1.3E-02
NA
Kidney
OraVIRIS,HEAST
Diehloroethene. 1.2- (TotaO
NA
D
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Ethyl benzene
NA
D
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Metttytene chloride
7.SE-03
B2
Liver
Water/IRIS
Tetmchloroetherte
5.2E-02
B2/C
US EPA
Toluene
NA
D
NA/lRIS.HEAST
Tnchloroethene
1.1E-02
B2/C
US EPA
Xylenes (Total)
NA
D
NA/IRIS,HEAST
SEMIVOLAT1LES
Anthracene
NA
D
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Benzoic add .
NA
D
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Benzo(a)anthrasene (b)
7.3E-01
02
Foreatomach
DtelARIS
Benzo(a)pyrane
7JE«00
B2
Forestomech
DteMRJS
Benzo(b)fluotmnthene (b)
7.3E-01
B2
Foreatomach
DteVlRIS
Ben jo(g.h, (Jperytene
NA
D
NA/IRIS, HCAST
Benzo(k)tluoranthene (b)
7.3E-01
B2
Foreatomach
Diel/IRIS
B
(bj Car car alopa factor lor benzo(a)pyrene combined wlti OEHHA's potency equivalency (actors (PEFs) tor PAHa
(c) Cancar alopa factor lor polychiorinaled biphenyti (PCBi)
-------
TABLE &-2
SUMMARY OF TOXICITY VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: INHALATION
SHIELD ALLOY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION
Jnfiaiauon
wssrra
Slope Factor
Evidanoa
Typ#
Baaa/
/mtWo-dVi
Oasi
Source
INORGANICS
Aluminum
NA
NA1RIS,HEAST
Antimony
NA
NA/IRIS, HEAST
Arwnic
S.0E+O1
A
Ratpiratory Tract
OccupaL/IRIS,HEAST
Barium
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Beryllium
B.4E*00
B2
Lung
IRIS,HEAST
Boron
NA
NA/1RIS.i«AST
Catfnium (a)
6.3E«00
B1
Reipimtory Tract
Oocupalonal/lfllS
Chromium IN
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Chromium VI
4.1E+01
A
Lung
IRIS,HEAST
Cobalt
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Copper
NA
D
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Cyan ida
NA
D
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Fluoride
NA
NA1RIS,HEAST
Lead
NA
B2
Kidney
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Uanganaaa
NA
D
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Mercury
NA
D
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Nickel (b)
8.4E-01
A
Re^iratory Tract -
IRIS,HEAST
MoMum
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Selenium
NA
D
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Silver
NA
D
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Strontium
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Titanium
NA
NA/1RIS.HEAST
Vanadium
NA
D
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Bnc
NA
D
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Srconium
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
VOLATILES
Ace lone
NA
D
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Banana
2.BE-02
A
Leukemic
OccupaL/HEAST
Butanone, 2-
NA
D
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Caibon deuflide
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Chloroform
I.1E-02
B2
Uvar
Gavaga/IRIS
Cfcloromathan*
8.3E-03
Kidnay
HEAST
Dchloroethena, 1,2- (Total)
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Etiylbenzene
NA
D
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Methylene chloride
1.6E-03
B2
Uvar.Lung
Inhaiation/ins
Tetrachtoroetfwia
2.0E-03
B2/C
US EPA
Toiuana
NA
D
NA/IRIS.HEAST
TricKkHoaViana
6.06-03
B2/C
US EPA
Xylene* (Total)
NA
D
NA/IRIS, HEAST
SEMIVOLATILES
Anthracene
NA
D
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Bar zoic add
NA
D
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Banzo(a)anttmeana
NA
B2
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Banzo(a)pyrana
NA
B2
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Benzo(t!)lluoran thane
NA
B2
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Benzo(g,h,l)peiye
1.4E-02
82
Iw
NA/IRIS.HEAST
ButylbenzytpMialMe
NA
C
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Chryiana
NA
B2
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Di-n-butyl phtiatate
NA
0
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Dinitrottluaoe. 2.4-
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Fluorantiana
NA
D
NA/IRIS,HEAST
I rxlano( 1,2,&cd)pyrane
NA
82
NA/IRIS. HEAST
MaphthaJene
NA
D
NA/IR18.HEA8T
Nlrophenai, *¦
NA
NA/IRIS .HEAST
PantacMorapbanol
NA
B2
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Phenanlhrane
NA
D
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Phenol
NA
D
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Pyrana
NA
D
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Trichkropfcenoi. 2^4,5-
NA
D
NA/IRIS.HEAST
PESTCIDES/ PC8f
DDT. 4,4-
3.4E-01
B2
Uvar
DiallRIS .FEAST
Aredor-124a (c)
7.7E+00
B2
Uvar
Dtat/IRIS
Aroctof-1254(c)
7.7E*00
B2
Uvar
Diat/IRIS
Arodor-1260 fri
7.7E*00
^ ...
Uvar
KeVIRIS
IRIS U.S. EPA. 1995. Intagralad Rlik Information Syttam (IRIS) Oaiabata
HE AST U.S. EPA. 1894, Health Effect! Aueumant Summary Tablet (HEAST): Annual Update
US EPA . US EPA (ORD/ECAO), 1M2dl Fax Irom J.8. Dotorhida to K. MIcMaon. TRC, ra. PERC and TCE rfope lector*.
May 20
NA - Toxicity value not avalabla
(a) Inhalation liopa factor derived tram inhalation unit riak ol 1J3E-3 (uoTrt3).i
(b) Ca/icar atop* laclor tor niekal reBnery dust
(c) Carcar slop* (actor for poiychbrinalad blphenyte (PC8a)
-------
TABLE B-3
SUMMARY OF TOXICITY VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH NONCARCtNOQEMC CWXJNIC EFFECTS: ORAL
SHIELOALLOY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION
Continuant
Chrome
Oral RtO
fmofaxfl
Conlidanca
Laval
Critical Effect
Basis'
Source
Uncertainty
Factor
Modifying
Factor
NOROAN1CS
Aluminum
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Antimony
4.0E-04
Lo»
Oacraaaad longevity, blood glucose and cholesterol
Watar/IRIS
1000
1
Arsenic
3.0E-04
Madum
Hyperplgmentabon, karatosls, posaible vascular affects
Watar/IRIS
3
1
Barium
7.0E-02
Medum
Increased Wood pressure
Watar/IRIS
3
1
Beryllium
S.OE-03
Low
Nona obtarvad
Watar/IRIS
100
1
Boron
B.0E-02
Madum
Testicular atrophy
DiaVIRIS.hCAST
100
1
Csttnium (a)
1.0E-03
High
Pretainisia
DieVIRIS
10
1
Chnwrium III
1.0E+00
Low
Nona observed
DieVIRIS
100
10
Chromium VI
5.0E-03
Low
Horw obMtvtd
Watar/IRIS
500
1
Cobalt
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Copper (t>)
3.7E-02
Local gastrointestinal irritation
Oral/HEAST
NA
NA
Cyanida
2.0E-02
Madum
Weight lost, tftyrold a Meets
DieVIRIS
100
G
Fluoride
8.0E-02
High
Dental Buoroela
WWer/lRIS
1
1
Laad
NA
HA/1 RIS,HE AST
Manganese (c)
1.4E-01
Osnbal nervous system ettects
DieVIRIS
1
1
Mercury
3.0E-04
Kidney effect!
Oral/HEAST
1000
NA
Nfckel (d)
2.0E-02
Madum
neducad body and organ walght
OlaVIRIS
300
1
Ncbkim
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Sstenium
S.OE-03
Hgh
Cirictf salana sis. CNS abnormalities
CMaVIRIS
3
1
Silvar
S.OE-03
Low
Dermal etlects
LV^IRIS
3
1
Strontium
S.OE-Q1
Madum
Bone cataurrVstrorBum changee
DM/IRIS
300
1
Titanium
NA
NA/tR IS,HEAST
Vanadium
7.0E-03
None observed
Water/HEAST
100
*NA
Zinc
3.0E-01
Madum
Anemia
OlaVIRIS
3
1
Zircon wm
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
VOLAT1LES
Acatona
1.0E-01
Low
Increased Bver aid kidney slight
GavegetRIS
1000
1
Banzana
NA
NA/1RIS, HEAST
Butanona, 2-
6.0E-01
Low
Decreased total birth weight
Orai/I RIS
3000
1
Cart>on dltulMa
1.0E-01
Madum
Fatal Tobdty/ Teratogenic
Oral/IRIS
100
1
Chloroform
1.0E-02
Madum
liver lesions
CapsuMRIS
1000
1
CWoromethare
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Dichloroethene. 1.2-(Total)
S.OE-03
Lhwrletiont
Water/HEAST
1000
NA
Ethytbenzene
1.0E-01
Low
Liver and iudnay toxicity
OlaVIRIS
1000
1
Msthylsns chloride
6.0E-02
Madwn
Liver toxicity
Watar/IRIS
100
1
Tatrachkxoathana
1.0E-02
Madum
Hapatotoiidty
Ga vagal RIS
1000
1
Toluana
2.0E-01
Madum
Changes In livar and kidney weights
Ga vagal RIS
1000
1
Trichbroethane
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Xylenes (Total)
2J)E*O0
Madum
Hyperactivity,decraaaed body weighllncreeied mortality
Qavaga/IRIS
100
1
SEMIVOLATILES
Anthracene
3.0E-01
Low
Noneobsanmd
Gavage/IRIS
3000
1
Benzoic add
4.0E+00
Madum
None observed
DieVIRIS
1
1
Banzo{a)anlhracana
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Banzo(a)pyrana
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Banzo(b)lluoranthene
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Bsnzo(g.h.i)perytene
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Banzo(k)lhiomnthana
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Bis<2-eiiylhe*yl)phthalale
2.0E-02
Madum
Incraasad raisltvs livar wal^it
OlaVIRIS
1000
1
Butylbenzytphthalate
2.0E-01
Low
Eflacts on body weight.galn, testeejtver.kidney
OlaVIRIS
1000
1
Chrysene
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Di-n-butyi phthalata
1.0E-01
Low
Increased mortaity
DM/IRIS
1000
1
Dinitrotohiene. 2,4-
2.0E-03
Hgh
Neurotoxicity
OteVIRiS
100
1
Ruoranthene
4.DE-02
Low
Kidney, livar, blood, and cinical affects
Gavaga/IRIS
3000
1
lndano(1.2.3-cd)pyrene
NA
*
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Stzphthaiana
4.0E-02
Decreased body wei(Jit gain
Savaga/tCASTO
10000
NA
Ni&ophanol, 4-
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
PentacNorephenot
&0&02
Hgh
Livar and kidney patvebgy
OlaVIRIS
100
1
Phenanthrane
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Phanol
e.oE-01
Low
Reduced fatal body walght
QavagaflHlS
100
1
Pyrana
3AE-02
Low
Kidney affect*
GavagaflRIS
3000
1
Tnchtorophsnot 2,4,5-
1.00E-01
Low
Uver and kidney patftotogy
Oral/IRIS
1000
1
PESTOOES1 PCBt
DDT. 4,4^
S.OE-04
Madum
Ut*r lesions
DieVIRIS
100
1
Arodor-1248
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Arodor-1254
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Aredor-1260
NA
NA/TRI8.HEAST
IRIS - U.S. EPA, 1995 (or mo*t recent fit*), Integrated Risk Intonation System (IRIS) Database
HEAST U.S. EPA (ECAO), 1B94, Health Effects Assessment Summary Tablet (HEAST): Annual Updaia
HEAST92 ¦ U.S. EPA (ECAO), 1062. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST): Annual Updaia.
NA Tonicity valua not available
(a) Valua (or bod ingaitkm; RID (or watar Ingestion It 5E-4
(b) Valua darivad from current drinking watar standard ol 1.3 mgl
(c) Value lor food ingestion; RtO lor watar Ingestion ii SE-3 rr©i
-------
TABLE B-*
SUMMARY OF TOXICITY VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH NON CARCINOGENIC CHRONIC EFFECTS: INHALATION
shieldalloy metallurgical corporation
Constituent
Chnonic
Inhalation RID
fma/tawn
Confidence
Laval
Critical EHect
Basis/
So urea
Uncertainty
Modifying
INORGANICS
Aluminum
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Antimony
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Arsenic
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Barium
1.0E-04
Fatotoxldty
HEAST
1000
1
Beryltum
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Boron (1)
S.7E-03
Bronchi!*
HEAST
100
Cadmium
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Chromium III
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Chromium VI
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Cobalt
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Copper
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Cyan ida
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Fluoride
NA
NA/HEAST
Laad
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Manganese (a)
1.8E-04
Medum
Respiratory synptsme, psychomotor dHurbancaa
OccupaL/IRIS
300
3
Mercury (b)
&EE-05
Neurotoxicity
Occupal/HEAST
30
NA
Nickel
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Niobium
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Selenium
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Silver
NA
NA/niS, HEAST
Strontium
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Titanium
NA
NArtRIS.HEAST
Vanadium
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Zinc
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Zirconium
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
VOLATILES
Acatona
NA
NA/IRIS, HEAST
Benzene
NA
NA/IRIS
Buunona, 2- (c)
2.BE-01
Low
Dacraaaad lata) birth weight
IRIS
1000
3
Carbon disulfide (g)
2.9E-03
Fatal Toxicity
Inhalatton/HaaK
1000
CMorotorm
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Chloro methane
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Dichloroethsne. 1,2-
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Ethylbenien* (c)
2JE-01
Low
Developmental toxicity
IRIS
300
1
Methylene chloride (d)
8.6E-01
Uvar toxicity
HEAST
100
Tetrachloroethylene
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Toluana (a)
1.1E-01
Madum
CNS enact*
Occupat/IRIS
300
1
Trichloroethytene
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Xylenes (Total)
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
SEMIVOLAT1LES
Anthracene
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Banicxaad
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Barno(a)antnracana
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Banzo(a)pyrana
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
8#nzo(b)1luoranthen»
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Benzo(g,h,i)pe»ylene
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Banio[k)ltuor*nthaoa
NA
NA/IRIS, HEAST
Bi»{2-ethythexyt)ptitha]aJe
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Butytberaylphthalate
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Chrytana
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Dwvbutyl phthalete
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Qtrutro toluene, 2.4-
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Fluorenthene
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
lndeno(1.2.3-cd)pyrana
NA
*
NA/IRIS. HEAST
Naphthalan*
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Nirophanoi. 4-
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
PentacNorophenol
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Phenanthrena
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Phenol
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Pyrana
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Trichlorop»ienol 2,4,5-
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
PESTICIDES /PCBt
DDT. 4.4-
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
Arodor-12M
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Aredor-1254
NA
NA/IRIS,HEAST
Arodor-1280
NA
NA/IRIS.HEAST
IRIS - U.S. EPA, 1985, Intagmad Riik Inlorimtion System (IRIS) Databaaa
HEAST U.S. EPA, 199*. Haalffi ENada Aaaatamant Summary Tablas (HEAST): Annual Updata
NA Tortcity valua not available
(a) Valua derived from RtC of 5E-05 mg/m3
(bj Valua darivad Irom RIC of 3E-04 mQfrnS.
(c) Valua darivad from RIC ol 1 E*00 m^m3.
(d) Valua darivad from RIC ol 3E»00 m^Trd.
(a) Valua derived from RtC of 4E-01 mg/m3.
(f) Valua darivad from RIC of 2.0E-02 rrg/rrO
(B) Valua darivad Irom RIC ol 1.0E-02 mg/nO
-------
SCENARIO 3 - RESIDENTIAL (CURRENT)
EXPOSURE AND RISK ESTIMATES
INCIDENTAL INGESTION OF DEEP GROUND WATER
SHIELDALLOY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION
Expowra
ksllmatas
Toxicity Valua*
Ri«k EWratas
95%UCL
Ground
RME
RME
Canoar
Noncancar
RME
RME
Walar a
Doaa
Dom
Slop*
Rafaranca
Cancar
Hazard
ConcantraNon
(Cancar) (Noncancar)
Factor (Oral)
Dow (Oral)
Risk
Quoliant
(moko-cfl
(mofro-dli
(moflMKn
r->
(-1
MOflQAMCS
Aluminum
0.9E+O1 '
1.2E+00
2.7E+00
NA
NA
NA
NA
Antimony
2.1E+00.*
2.5E-02
5.8E-02
NA
4.0E-04
NAiH
Araanic
3.5E-01 *
4.1E-03
8.6E-03
1.5E*00
3.0E-04
ilt«l
Barium
5.1E-01 *
8.0E-03
1.4E-02
NA
7.0E-02
NA
2E-01
BaryMum
1.1E-02 '
1.3E-04
3.1E-04
4.3E+00
5.0E-03
6E-02
Boron
1.6E-01 *
1.9E-03
4.3E-03
NA
. 9.0E-02
NA
5E-02
Chromium M
8.8E+01 *
I.OE-fOO
2.4E+00
NA
I.OE-fOO
NM|
Ctvomlum VI
1.4E+03 *
1.6E*Ot
3.8E+01
NA
S.0E-03
N/gj
ukm!
Cobalt
4.4E-02 *
S.1E-04
1.2E-03
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coppar
3.8E-02 *
4.4E-04
1.0E-03
NA
3.7E-02
NA
3E-02
CyankJa
6.2E-02 *
7.3E-04
1.7E-03
NA
2.0E-02
NA
BE-02
Laad
2.4E-02 *
2.8E-04
6.7E-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
Manganaa*
1.8E-01 '
2.1E-03
4.8E-03
NA
S.0E-03
NA
1E+00
Marcury
B8E-04 '
1.2E-05
2.7E-05
NA
3.0E-04
NA
8E-02
*ckal
8.7E-03 *
1.0E-04
2.4E-04
NA
2.0E-02
NA
IE-02
Salanlum
1.3E-01 *
1.5E-03
3.6E-03
NA
5.0E-03
NA
7E-01
Sfear
5.1E-03 *
6.0E-05
1.4E-04
NA
S.0E-03
NA
3E-02
Strontium
3.2E-01 '
3.7E-03
B.7E-03
NA
6.0E-01
NA
IE-02
Titanium
3.3E-01
3.8E-03
8.BE-03
NA
NA
NA
NA
Vanadium
2-OEtOO *
2.3E-02
5.5E-02
NA
7.0E-03
N*
KHttK
Zinc
6.SE-02 '
7.6E-04
1.8E-03
NA
3.0E-01
NA
6E-03
VOLATILE ORGANICS
TalracMoroathana
t.OE-03 *
1.2E-05
2.7E-05
5.2E-02
1.0E-02
6E-07
3E-03
^ mk
incmMOttn*
7.0E-02 *
8.2E-04
1.BE-03
1.IE-02
NA
BE-06
NA
bnaohqaMics
9la(2-««iy 1E-06 or
hazard quoVantflndax > 1E+00
-------
SCENARIO 3 - RESIDENTIAL (CURRENT)
EXPOSURE AND RISK ESTIMATES
INCIDENTAL INGESTION OF SHALLOW GROUNO WATER
SHIELOALLOY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION
bxposura
bstimates
Toxicitv V
aluaa
Risk Estimate*
95% UCL
Ground
RME
RME
Cancar
Noncancar
RME
RME
Walar
Ooaa
Dosa
Slopa
Ralaronca
Cancar
Hazard
Concan (ration
(Cancar) (Noncancar)
Factor (Oral)
Dow (Oral)
Rnk
Quotfant
(nrxyn
(mafca-dj
(mtvVo-dl
(nnfco-d)i
(mcAo-dl
(-1
1-1
MORGANtCS
Aknrinum
3.9E+01 *
4.6E-01
1.1E+00
NA
NA
NA
NA
Araanic
7.5E-01 *
8.8E-03
2.0E-02
1.5E+00
3.0E-04
MMttl
MBQ8
Barium
8.7E-02 *
1.0E-03
2.4E-03
NA
7.0E-02
NA
3E-02
BaryVum
5.7E-01 *
6.7E-03
1.6E-02
4.3E+00
5.0E-03
MBHMS
Boron
1.5E*01 *
1.7E-01
4.0E-01
NA
9.0E-02
naJ
KSKRmBK
Cadrrium
7.7E-03 *
B.0E-05
2.1E-04
NA
5.0E-04
NA
4E-01
Chromium HI
7.7E-02
0.0E-04
2.1E-03
NA
1.0E+00
NA
2E-03
Chromium VI
S.OE-03 '
9.4E-05
2.2E-04
NA
5.0E-03
NA
4E-02
Cobalt
7.5E-03 *
B.8E-05
2.1E-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coppar
1.3E-01
1.5E-03
3.6E-03
NA
3.7E-02
NA
1E-01
CyankJa
2.6E«01 *
3.1E-01
7.2E-01
NA
2.0E-02
Mi
HH9WH
Laad
8.9E-02 *
B.1E-04
1.9E-03
NA
NA
NA
NA
Manganaaa
6.0E-01 *
7.0E-03
1.6E-02
NA
5.0E-03
Marcury
6.8E-04 '
B.0E-06
1.9E-05
NA
3.0E-04
NA
6E-02
Nicfcal
2.1E-01 *
2.5E-03
5.8E-03
NA
2.0E-02
NA
3E-01
Titanium
1.5E-01 *
1.7E-03
4.1E-03
NA
NA
NA
NA
Vanadium
1.3E+02 *
1.5E+00
3.5E+00
NA
7.0E-03
One
1.1E+00 '
1.3E-02
3.0E-02
NA
3.0E-01
NA
1E-01
i Baaad on lalaclad ground wator aamplaa (Sm Flgura 4-5)
Doaa ~ fConcantafen ilfliEFi ED)/(BW x AT]
Cancar Rl*> Doaa xSlopa Factor
Hazard OuoMwit > DdM / Ratoranc* Dom
RME
RME
Cancar
Hazard
RMc
Indax
TOTAL; |
i Rata (1R) ¦
Eapoaura Fraquancy (EF) -
Eapoaura Durafon (ED) -
Bortjr WcIgM (BW) -
Avaragkig Tlma (AT)
2.0 IM
350 iVyr
30 yr
70 kg
25550 d (canoar)
10050 d (noncancar)
¦ Canoar HA > 1E-06 of
hazard quotanMndax > 1E+00
-------
SCENARIO 3 - RESIDENTIAL (CURRENT)
EXPOSURE AND RISK ESTIMATES
DERMAL CONTACT WITH DEEP GROUND WATER
SHIELDALLOY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION
Exposure
:stimates
Toxicity Values
HKk Eslmates
95% UCL
Ground
Deimal
RME
RME
Cancer
Noncancer
RME
RME
Water a
Pemieabiity
Dose
Dote
Slope
Reference
Cancar
Hazard
¦--«
MWTVO
Concentration
Constant ¦
(Cancer) (Noncancer)
Factor (Oral)
Dose (Oral)
Risk
Quotient
(aMir)
(moto-dl
(mo/ta-dVi
(mofco-d)
(->
(-1
INORGANICS
Aluminum
9.9E+01 *
NA
0.0E+00
O.OE+OO
NA
NA
NA
NA
Antimony
2.1E+00 '
NA
O.OE+00
O.OE+OO
NA
4.0E-04
NA
NA
Araanlc
3.5E-01
NA
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
1.5E+00
3.0E-04
NA
NA
Barium
5.1E-01 '
NA
0.0E+00
O.OE+OO
NA
7.0E-02
NA
NA
BaryNum
1.1E-02 *
NA
O.OE+OO
0.0E+00
4.3E+00
5.0E-03
NA
NA
Boron
1.6E-01 *
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NA
9.0E-02
NA
NA
Omnium II
8.8E+01'
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NA
1.0E+00
NA
NA
Chromium VI
1.4E+03 1
NA
O.0E+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
5.0E-03
NA
NA
Cobalt
4.4E-02
NA
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
NA
NA
NA
Copper
3.8E-02 '
NA
O.OE+00
0.0E+00
NA
3.7E-02
NA
NA
Cyanide
6.2E-02
NA
0.0E+00
O.OE+OO
NA
2.0E-02
NA
NA
Laad
2.4E-02 *
NA
0.0E+00
0.06+00
NA
NA
NA
NA
Manganaaa
1.8E-01 *
NA
O.OEtOO
O.OE+OO
NA
5.0E-03
NA
NA
Mercury
9.8E-04 '
NA
0.0E+00
O.OE+OO
NA
3.0E-04
NA
NA
Nickel
B.7E-03 '
NA
0.0E+00
O.OE+OO
NA
2.0E-02
NA
NA
Selenium
1.3E-01 '
NA
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
5.0E-03
NA
NA
Silver
6.1E-03 *
NA
0.0E+00
O.OE+OO
NA
S.0E-03
NA
NA
Strontium
3.2E-01 '
NA .
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
6.0E-01
NA
NA
Titanium
3.3E-01
NA
O.OE-fOO
O.OE+OO
NA
NA
NA
NA
Vanadium
2.0E+00 '
NA
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
7.0E-03
NA
NA
Zinc
6.5E-02 *
NA
0.0E+00
O.OE+OO
NA
3.0E-01
NA
NA
VOLATILE ORGANICS
TatracNoroethene
1.06-03 ¦
NA
0j0E*00
O.OE+OO
5.2E-02
1DE-02
NA
NA
TricNoroatiene
7.0E-02 *
NA
0.0E»00
O.OE+OO
1.1E-02
NA
NA
NA
BNA ORGANIC^
Bie{2-etiytiexy4)phttalale
4.0E-03 '
1.6E-02
2.1E-06
4.9E-06
1.4E-02
2.0E-02
3E-08
2E-04
'» Maximum detected concentration
* Baaad on aaladad ground walar samples (Saa Figure 4-5)
a EPA eommantt on tie HHRA (Inorganics t VOCs); EPA (1992) (BNA otganics)
Doaa a |Coneantalion xUCxSAxPCxETxEFx ED] / (BW > AT)
Cancar Risk - Doaa x Slopa Factor
Hazard Quotient - Doaa / Reference Dom
RME
RME
Cancar
Hazard
Rhk
Index
TOTAL;
3E-08
2E-04
Unit Conversion (UC) -
Darmal Surface Area (SA) m
Darmal PermesMity Constant (PC) «
Expoaura Time (ET) ¦
Exposure Frequency (EF)
Expoaura Duralon (ED)
Body Weight (BW) >
Averaging Time (AT)
1E-03 ton
22.800 cm2
CSctMk (chemical-ipedfc)
0.25 hr/d
350 dfyr
30 yr
70 kg
25550 d(canoar)
10950 d (noncancer)
Cancar iMolE-06 or
hazard quotanMndax > TE+00
-------
SCENARIO 3 ¦ RESIDENTIAL (CURRENT)
EXPOSURE AND RISK ESTIMATES
DERMAL CONTACT WITH SHALLOW GROUND WATER
SHIELDALLOY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION
loxicilv Value*
Risk Eskmatea
95% UCL
Ground
Dermal
RME
RME
Cancar
Noncancar
RME
RME
Water
Penneabilty
Doaa
Doaa
Slopa
Reference
Cancar
Hazard
Concentration
Conatant a
(Cancar) (Noncancar)
Factor (Orel)
Doaa (Oral)
Riik
Quotient
«»*¦ »- -«
(moH
IcrMirt
.(motodt
(mofca-dl
fmofca-dli
ImaAuxfl
M
(-1
MOfKMMCS
Aluminum
3.9E+01 1
NA
0.0E+00
O.OE+OO
NA
NA
NA
NA
Araanle
7.5E-01 '
NA
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
1.5E+00
3.0E-04
NA
NA
Barium
8.7E-02 *
NA
0.0E+00
O.OE+OO
NA
7.0E-02
NA
NA
BeryNum
5.7E-01
NA
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
4.3E+00
5.0E-03
NA
NA
Boron
1.5E+01 '
NA
0.0E+00
O.OE+OO
NA
9.0E-02
NA
NA
Cadmium
7.7E-03 '
NA
o.ot+oo
o.ot+oo
NA
5.0E-04
NA
NA
Chromium III
7.7E-02*
NA
0.0E+00
O.OE+OO
NA
1.0E+00
NA
NA
Chromium VI
8.0E-03 1
NA
0.0E+00
O.OE+OO
NA
5.0E-03
NA
NA
Cobalt
7.5E-03 '
NA
0.0E+00
O.OE+OO
NA
NA
NA
NA
Copper
1.3E-01 '
NA
0.0E+00
O.OE+OO
NA
3.7E-02
NA
NA
Cyanida
2.6E+01 '
NA
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
2.0E-02
NA
NA
Laad
6.9E-02 '
NA
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
NA
NA
NA
Manganaaa
8.0E-01 *
NA
O.OE+OO
0.0E+00
NA
5.0E-03
NA
NA
Mercury
6.8E-04 '
NA
O.OE+OO
0.0E+00
NA
3.0E-04
NA
NA
Nickel
2.1E-01
NA
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
2.0E-02
NA
NA
Titanium
1.5E-01
NA
o.oe+oo
O.OE+OO
NA
NA
NA
NA
Vanadum
1.3E+02 '
NA
O.OE+OO
0.0E+00
NA
7.0E-03
NA
NA
Zinc
1.1E+00 *
NA
O.OE+OO
0.0E+00
NA
3.0E-01
NA
NA
* Baaed on aelacted ground water urrpiu (Sm Figure 4-5)
¦ EPA oommenta on N HHRA (Inorgvitcs ft VOC«); EPA (1992) (BNA organic*)
Doaa »[Concentration xlCxSAxPCxETx EF x ED] / (BW x AT]
Cancer Riak - Doaa x SlojJe Factor
Hazard Quotient-Doaa/Reference Doaa
Unit Converaion (UC)
Dermal Surface Ana (SA) -
DannaJ ParmaabWty Conatant (PC) »
Exposure Time (ET) -
Expoaure Frequency (EF) a
Expo aura Durafan (EO)
Body Weight (BW)-
Avera0ng Una (AT) -
1E-03 Item
22, BOO cm2
CScN^t fehamical-apecMc)
0.2S hr/d
350 (tfyr
30 yr
70 kg
2S550 d (canoar)
10950 d (noncancar)
RME
RME
Cancar
Hazard
Riak
Index
TOTAL:
NA
NA
Cancer riak > 1E-06 or
hazard quotient/Index > 1E+00
-------
SCENARIO 3 - RESIDENTIAL (CURRENT)
EXPOSURE ANO RISK ESTIMATES
INHALATION OF AIRBORNE (VAPOR PHASE) CONSTITUENTS FROM DEEP GROUND WATER
SHIELOALLOY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION
Expotura btHmataa
loxicilv Valua*
Hiik batmataa
95% UCL
Estimated
Ground
95% UCL
RME
RME
Cancar
Noncancar
RME
RME
Walar a
Air
Doaa
Dom
Slopa Factor
Rat. Dom
Cancar
Hazard
»*- »- -¦
Lninni
Concentration
Concentration
(Cancar) (Noncancar)
(Inhalation)
(Inhalation)
Rtak
Quotient
(mtrtrhl
ImoAunl)
(mofkod)
(-»
(-)
MORQAMCS*
Aluminum
9.9E+01 *
O.OEtOO
O.OEtOO
O.OEvOO
NA
NA
NA
NA
Antimony
2.1E«00 *
0.0E«O0
O.OE+OO
0.0E+00
NA
NA
NA
NA
Araanlc
3.5E-01
0.0E«O0
O.OEtOO
O.OE+OO
S.0E+01
NA
NA
NA
Barium
5.1E-01 *
0.0E«OO
O.OE+OO
O.OEtOO
NA
1.0E-44
NA
NA
BaryMum
1.1E-02
O.OEtOO
OOEtOO
O.OE*00
8.4E+00
NA
NA
NA
Boron
1.6E-01
O.OEtOO
O.OEtOO
0.0E«O0
NA
5.TE-03
NA
NA
Chromium tl
8.8E+01
O.OE+OO
O.OEtOO
O.OEtOO
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chromium VI
1.4E+03 *
O.OEtOO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
4.1E+01
NA
NA
NA
Cobalt
4.4E-02 *
0.0E«O0
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coppar
3.8E-02 *
0.0E«O0
O.OE+OO
O.OEtOO
NA
NA
NA
NA
Cyantda
La ad
6.2E-02 '
OOEtOO
O.OEtOO
O.OE+OO
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.4E-02 *
0.0E«O0
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
NA
NA
NA
Manganaaa
1.8E-01 *
O.OEtOO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
1.6E-04
NA
NA
Marcuty
9.86-04 *
O.OEtOO
O.OEtOO
O.OE+OO
NA
0.6E-OS
NA
NA
Nkkal
8.7E-03
O.OEtOO
O.OE+OO
O.OEfOO
8.4E-01
NA
NA
fcA
Salanlum
1.3E-01
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
NA
NA
NA
Silvar
S.1E-03 *
O.OE-fOO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
NA
NA
NA
Strontium
3.2E-01 *
O.OEtOO
O.OE+OO
O.OEtOO
NA
NA
NA
NA
Titanium
3.3E-01 *
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
NA
NA
NA
Vanadkim
2.0E+00 *
O.OEtOO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
NA
NA
NA
Zinc
8.5E-02 *
O.OEtOO
O.OEtOO
O.OE+OO
NA
NA
NA
NA
VOLATILE OROANICS
Ta>adiloto*fiana
1.0E-03 *
6.0E-03
5.8E-06
1.4E-0S
2.0E-03
NA
lE-oe
NA
i ncnoravninv 1
7.0E-02 *
4.2E-01
4.1E-04
9.6E-04
6.0E-03
NA
¦MM
NA
BNAORGANICS *
Bia(2-«1hytiaxy4)pMhalala
4.0E-03 *
2.4E-02
2.3E-05
5.5E-05
1.4E-02
NA
3E-07
NA
* Baaad on aalactad ground wafer aamplai (Saa Figure 4-5)
CA - [Coocantrakon xFVxFRxSOxBV]
Dom - [CA x IR x RAF x ET x EF x ED|/|BW x AT]
Cancar Rlalt - Dom x Slop* Factor
Hazard Quotiant - Doaa / Rataranca Doaa
FracMon of ConiWuant VotaMzad (FV) -
Row rata of ahowar walar (FR) -
Showar Duration (SO)
Bathraon Voluma (BV) ¦
Inhalation Rata (IR)»
Ralattva Abaorpfon Factor (RAF) -
Expotura Thna^ET) -
Expo Bur a Fraquancy (EF) »
Expoaura Duration (ED)
Body Waight (BW) -
Avarapng Tma (AT) -
RME
RME
Cancar
Hazard
Rlak
Indax
TOTAL- |
NA
. Cancar riaio 1E-06or
hazard quoOanMndax HE+00
0.0
- (tor organfca)
NA
- (lor Inorganic*)
400
Mir
0.2
hr
12
m
0.83
nWhr
1
lor aN charrtcal* (--)
0.2
hrAJ
350
«"y
30
n
70
*0
75550
d (cancar)
10950
d (noncancar)
-------
SCENARIO 3 - RESIDENTIAL (CURRENT)
EXPOSURE AND RISK ESTIMATES
INHALATION Of AIRBORNE (VAPOR PHASE) CONSTITUENTS FROM SHALLOW GROUND WATER
SHIELDALLOY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION
bxposura Estimate*
loxicily Value*
Rick titmatai
Estimated
95% UCL
95% UCL
RME
RME
Cancar
Noncancar
RME
RME
Ground Water
Air
Dow
Dow
Slop* Factor
Rel. Ooaa
Cancar
Hazard
Concentration
Concentration
(Cancar) (Noncancar)
(Inhalation)
(Inhalation)
Rtek
Quotient
(mofttb)
fmato-dl
(mota-dl
(mofto-dli
I-)
INORGANICS
Aluminum
3.9E+01 '
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ananic
7.5E-01
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
5.0E+01
NA
NA
NA
Barium
8.7E-02
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
1.0E-04
NA
NA
BaryMum
5.7E-01
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
ME+00
NA
NA
NA
Boron
1.5E+01
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
5.7E-03
NA
NA
Cadrrium
7.7E-03 *
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
S.3E+00
NA
NA
NA
Chromium III
7.7E-02 "*
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chromium VI
8.0E-O3 *
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
4.1E+01
NA
NA
NA
Cobalt
7.5E-03 *
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
NA
NA
NA
Copper
1.3E-01
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
NA
NA
NA
Cyanide
2.6E+01 *
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
NA
NA
NA
Laad
6.9E-02 *
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
NA
NA
NA
Uanganaa*
6.0E-01 ~
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
1.BE-04
NA
NA
Mercury
6.8E-04
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
B.6E-OS
NA
NA
Mkfcal
2.1E-01 *
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
8.4E-01
NA
NA
NA
Titanium
1.5E-01
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
NA
NA
NA
ttnadbm
1.3E+02 *
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
NA
NA
NA
One
1.1E+00*
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
NA
NA
NA
NA
i Baaed on ntoctod ground water nmplM (Sm Figure 4-5)
CA - [OoncantaHon xFV x FR x SD x BVJ
Dow - (CA x IR x RAF x ET x EF x ED) / (BW x ATI
Canear Ri*k - Doe* x Slop* Factor *
Hazwd Quotient Don / Rataraneaytoaa
Fraction ot OonadkMnt VaMbed (FV) -
RME
RME
Canoar
Hazard
RMt
Index
TOTAL;
NA
NA
Cancer *tt > 1E-06 or
hazard quotfenMndex >1E+00
Flow rale of *ho«*r water (FR)>
Shower Duration (SO)»
Balhroon Volume (BV) -
Inhalation Rata (IR)»
Ralaftra Abaorptkn Factor (RAF) -
Exposure lima (ET) -
Expoaura Frequency (EF) ¦
Expoaura Dura tor (EO) ¦
Body Weight (BW)
Averaging Tkna (AT)
0.9
- (tor organic*)
NA
- (tor inorganic*)
400
Mtr
0.2
hr
12
m
0.83
mrtv
1
lor dl chemical* (--)
0.2
hrM
350
dfr
30
r
70
kg
25550
d (cancar)
10950
d (noncancar)
-------
APPENDIX C
LIST OF ACRONYMS
GROUND WATER OPERABLE UNIT
Shieldalloy Corporation
Newfield Borough, Gloucester County, New Jersey
-------
APPENDIX C
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACRONYM
DESCRIPTION
CEA
Classification Exception Area
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
COC
Contaminant of Concern
CPF
Cancer Potency Factor
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPC
Exposure Point Concentration
FFS
Focused Feasibility Study
gpm
Gallons per Minute
HHRA
Human Health Risk Assessment
HI
Hazard Index
HQ
Hazard Quotient
MCL
Maximum Contaminant Level
NJDEP
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Ppb.
Parts per Billion
ppm
Parts per Million
RfD
Reference Dose
TCE
Tricholorethene (Tricholoroethylene)
UCL
Upper Confidence Limit
VOC
Volatile Organic Compound
-------
APPENDIX D
TRANSCRIPTION OF PUBLIC MEETING
GROUND WATER OPERABLE UNIT
Shieldalloy Corporation
Newfield Borough, Gloucester County, New Jersey
-------
MEM JERSEY DEPARTMENT OP ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SITE REMEDIATION PROGRAM
PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS COMPLETION OF THE REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION/FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY AND THE PROPOSED
DECISION DOCUMENT FOR REMEDIATION OF THE GROUNDWATER
PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA
Division of Publicly Fundad Sit* Raaadiation
SHIELDALLOY SUPERFUND SITE
Wadnaaday, Saptaabar 13, 1995
7:00 p.a.
Maria D. Durand School
Vinaland, Nan Jaraay
APPEARANCES;
PAMELA LANGS, Saction Chiaf, NJDEP
DONNA GAFFIGAN, Casa Managar, NJDEP
JEAN OLIVA, Projact M&ngar, TRC Environaantal Corp.
J( J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
TRANSCRIBER PATRICIA C. REPKO
268 EVERGREEN AVENUE
HAMILTON, NEW JERSEY 08619
(609) 586-2311 FAX NO. (609) 587-3590
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
- ^
r
2
MS. LANGE: 1 think we can get started now. Ha were
waiting a few sore minutes, to see if sou more people case in.
Good evening and welcome. My naae's Pan Lange. I'a a Section
Chief with the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, and we're here tonight to discuss the groundwater
remediation at the Shieldalloy Facility in Newfield Borough. I
just want to let a few people in the audience know that we have
a few people here tonight for you to be aware of. One is Ms.
Loretta Williams, the Newfield -- Newfield Borough
councilwoman, and also, Andrea Edwards, a representative of
Senator Lautenberg's Barrington office. He'll be talking about
Superfund tonight. As I said, we're here to discuss the
completion of a groundwater remedial action at the at the
Shieldalloy Facility.
He have a handout here tonight. This is the public meeting
agenda. In it you will find a schedule of how tonight will
run, a summary of what went on at the site, a copy of the
proposed plan for a groundwater remedy, a list of a glossary
of terms, some informational diagrams, a handout on the
superfund process, and a questionnaire at the back about
meeting evaluation form.
As -- as the meeting goes on, I'd like to you pay attention
to the meeting evaluation form, also, so we can be aware of
; we're doing here tonight and how we can improve thinqs (or
next tine.
-------
t
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
Anybody who has not signed in at this time, if you could go
to the back roon and put your naoe on the list. This is so
that we have your name and address for any future sailings for
the site and anything that comes up. Okay. Everybody signed
in I guess.
Me're here tonight both to share information with you and
to receive your comments and questions. This is a part of our
commitment to the community involvement which is described in
detail in the community community relations summary in the
handout that you received tonight. On the back sheet is a flow
chart that tells you the major steps in a superfund site
cleanup. Me are at step number six now, and as indicated in
the fact sheet that's in your package, the relevant documents
for this site are located in local repositories.
The floor, is going to be open for questions and comments
after the presentations are completed. If you would like to
comment or ask a question tonight, please complete a speaker
registration card. Nell, considering the size of the crowd,
that won't be necessary. Me're going to skip over that part.
All I ask is that if you would like to speak, what we can do
later is if you'll just indicate to me that you want to have a
question, I'd like you to come up to this microphone, state
your name, and spell your name, because we do have a we to
have a transcriber here this evening that's taking down
everything that's being said so we can keep track of uhit i --s
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on. That is a superfund regulation by the way, and whan you
want to speak, speak clearly, and we will try to answer your
question as best we can, and if we can't answer your question
tonight, we will try and find an answer to your question and
gat back to you as soon as possible.
The consent period on our proposal runs until September
25th, so that Mans up and until Septeaber 25th, if you don't
feel coafortable cosing up and asking your questions, you can
write your questions into the department, and we will respond
in to you in the record of decision that will be issued for
this site. We're going to try and keep the presentation brief
but allow sufficient tiae for your conenti and questions. He
would also ask that you liait the length of your coanents so
that everyone who wants to speak gets a chance, and please,
hold all questions and coaaents until the speakers are done.
Now, I would like to introduce Donna Gaffigan, the Case
Manager froa the Department of Environaental Protection. She's
going to give you a brief overview of the site history and
and after Donna, Jean Oliva of the representing Shield --
Shieldalloy Metallurgic Corporation, will discuss the renedial
investigation and feasibility study objectives and present the
reaedial alternatives for the site.
I would also like like you to know that other DEP
representatives are here tonight. John Boyer, Technical
Coordinator of the site who aainly deals with laboratory issues
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
and soil issues, and George Nicholas, tha geologist, and also,
in the back of tha room, Liz Matasat is tha Community Relations
Coordinator, and her address and phone number is in this
handout, so without further ado.
MS. GAFFXGAN: As said, I'm Donna Gaffigan. I'm a
Case Manager up at Department of Environmental Protection, and
I'm going to talk about the site background. Okay. The
Shieldalloy Facility now known as Shialdalloy Metallurgic
Corporation consists of 67 and a half acres near the
intersection of West Boulevard and Weymouth Road. The
manufacturing plant is located in Nevfield. There are railroad
tracks to the north and west of the site, wooded areas, homes,
small businesses to the east and west, and Hudson Branch, which
is a small tributary of the Hudson of the Burnt Mill branch
which flows into the Maurice River exists to the south, and
there's some homes and a small church on the other side of the
stream.
Shieldalloy also owns seven and a half acres of farmland
located southwest of the plant in Vineland. The farmland was
purchased mo that Shieldalloy would have access to the
property. There's no production or waste disposal practices
aver occurred there. Okay. For the remainder of my discussion
I'll focus on the manufacturing plant.
This slide shows the major features on the manufacturing
plant. This here shows the actual property line and the fence
-------
1
2
3
4
5
e
7
a
a
10
ii
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
10
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
Una because part of the property Is fenced as shown within the
property line.
In 1955 Shieldalloy in 1955 Shieldalloy began processing
ores and ainarals to produce primary aatals such as chroniua,
ferroalloys ferroalloys are products that contain iron and
another aetal such as farro vanadiua. Production occurs in
these najor buildings where large furnaces are used to heat the
raw aaterials hundreds of degrees to produce the setaIs and the
alloys. Byproducts of this processes are known as slags and
drosses, and they're stored out here in the byproduct storage
area.
These are lined lagoons where waste water was treated.
Prior to the construction of those lagoons and in the ease
location there was an unlined untreated waste water froa a
chroniua process was disposed into an unlined lagoon in the
60's. The lined lagoons are currently not used and are
scheduled for reaoval and cleanup.
A degreasing unit was located here in this little square,
which was used in the 60's, also, to reaove dirt and grease
froa aanufactured aetals and raw aaterials. Trichloroethene,
or TCE for short, was the degreasing solvent used. In the
past, TCE was a coaaon solvent used for aany industrial and
domestic purposes. TCE belongs to a group of chemicals known
as volatile organic cheaicals, because they evaporate or
volatilize very easily, and this building here is the
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
IB
20
21
22
23
2*
25
7
groundwater treatment system, and this is the out fall that
goes into the stream which I will talk about shortly.
In addition to manufacturing processes Shieldalloy has been
involved with site cleanup for quite some tine. Chromium
contamination of the groundwater was first observed in 1970 as
a result of disposing raw waster water in that unlined lagoon
that I just talked about. As a result, DEP directed them to '
perform groundwater studies, determine the extent of the
chromium contamination, and to develop appropriate cleanup
actions.
The investigations that begun in 1972 resulted in the
installation of a groundwater extraction and treatment system
in 1979. That system, which pumped contaminated groundwater
from one well located on the Shieldalloy site, is capable of
remediating 80 gallons per minute of contaminated groundwater
using ion exchange technology. Further studies show that this
system was not effective Irn in remediating all of the
chromium contamination. DEP notified Shieldalloy of this
decision in 1982.
In 1983 Shieldalloy was placed on EPA's national priority
list as a Superfund site. In 1984, DEP and Shieldalloy entered
into an administrative consent order, or ACO, which required
Shieldalloy to conduct studies to improve the remediation of
the chromium contaminated groundwater. In addition,
5hieldalloy had to continue operating the 80-qallon per minute
-------
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
10
17
18
19
30
21
22
23
24
25
8
systea until a new systea could be constructed.
Volatile organic compounds, or VOC's for abort, were also
detected in the groundwater at and near the .facility. This
prompted OEP to establish a well restriction area 1986 to
prevent people froa using contaainated wells for drinking
water. Public noney was used to extend existing water lines to
affected residences.
This slide shows the well restriction area that was
established. It includes alaost the entire area bounded by
West Boulevard, Forest Grove Road, Delsea Drive, and Weymouth
Road. The wall restriction area included the VOC contaaination
that existed at the tiae plus the area where it was predicted
to be in ten years based on a worst-case scenario in which no
extraction and reaediation was occurring. Since the aajority
of the chroaiua contaaination lies within the well restriction
area, the residents within the well restriction area were
protected froa drinking both chroaiua and VOC contaainated
groundwater.
Low levels of VOC contaaination were also detected in the
one municipal well located down gradient of Shieldalloy, so in
1986 DEP again used public aoney to put an airstripper on that
well to reaove the contaaination. DEP has investigated several
other sources of VOC contamination in the Vineland-Mewfield
trea based upon an evaluation of production processes, riw
materials, and waste disposal practices. The results or
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
30
21
22
23
24
25
9
investigation will be finalized in the near future and will be
used by OEP as a basis to require the responsible parties to
reimburse the public aonies that were spent.
To continue with the history, the study to approve the
renediation of the chroaiua contaainated groundwater was
completed in early 1988. The study recoaaended that the
groundwater extraction and treataent should be increased froa
80 gallons per ainute to 400 gallons per ainute and should
operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to be effective. The
study also recoaaended continued use of ion exchange technology
and also recoaaended that four additional extraction wells be
installed to puap contaainated groundwater froa off site
locations. One of these extraction wells is located on the
parcel of faraland that Shieldalloy owns.
To reaove the volatile organic contaaination that would be
recovered along with the chroaiua contaaination since the
contaaination overlaps, Shieldalloy added an airstripper to the
design of the systea in response to DKP and public concerns.
Later in 1988 DEP and Shieldalloy entered into a second
administrative consent order which required Shieldalloy to
initiate operation of that newly proposed 400 gallon per minute
ion exchange systea. The ACO also required Shieldalloy to
conduct a site vide remedial investigation and feasibility
study. The RIFS, es it is known, will be discussed in the next
presentation.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
e
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1°
In 1989 the new 400 gallon p«r minute ion exchange system
bec&ae operational, however, because of unforeseen difficulties
the 400 gallon per minute treatment rata was hard to reach,
because the system required frequent, but temporary, shutdowns.
In 1990 the field activities for the remedial investigation
began. This included extensive sampling of the groundwater.
The results of the remedial investigations were submitted to
DEP in 19 1992 at which time the focused feasibility study
for groundwater was initiated. Meanwhile, because of the
difficulties with the ion exchange system, Shieldalloy
constructed an electrochemical treatment system in 1992-' before
the completion of the focus feasibility study. Since then the
electrochemical treatment system has been very effective in the
treatment of the recovered groundwater. It is achieving much
better results than were possible using the ion exchange
system. The electrochemical treatment unit has achieved and
maintained 400 gallons per minute pumping rate, and an
airstripper provide continues to provide a VOC contamination
printout.
This slide shows the location of the components of the
groundwater remediation system that was required by the 1981
kCO. The electrochemical treatment system currently uses the
same five extraction veils, which ars located at these points,
the same building, which is located here, and the same out
fall, 0-0-1, that discharges to the Hudson Branch.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
Next, Jean Oliva of TRC representing Shieldalloy will
discuss the results of the remedial investigation and
feasibility Btudy.
MS. OLIVA: Good evening. As Donna said, ay nana is
Jean Oliva, and I an an engineer with TRC Environmental
Corporation, and TRC has been retained by Shieldalloy to
conduct the remedial investigation feasibility study activities
at the site.
First, I'd like to provide you with an overview of the
remedial investigation feasibility study, or RIFS process. The
project begins with the development of objectives for the
project and is followed by site sampling to characterize the
site. As the site is being characterized, the feasibility
study process is initiated. The feasibility study uses
remedial response objectives which are developed based on the
results of the site characterization. Baaed on those
objectives, remedial alternatives are developed and screened
and then undergo a detailed analysis, and it's based on this
analysis that a remedy is selected from the site.
The objectives for the remedial investigation feasibility
study at Shieldalloy are listed here. In general, the intent
of the study is to identify impacts of previous site
activities. Once those impacts are identified a determination
is made how thoss impacts affect human health and the
anvironment. For contaminants which present unacceptable
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
13
14
15
18
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
impacts to human health and tha environment, raaadial action
altarnativas ara devaloped and evaluated.
At Shieldalloy following the initial sampling effort
sufficient groundwater data was available to support the
development and evaluation of groundwater remedial
altarnativas, therefore, groundwater is baing addressed in a
separata phase which is referred to as an operable unit.
Recently, additional saapling of other media including the
soil, sediment, and surface water has bean completed, and those
madia will ba addressed in a separata phase in the future.
This slida look shows the locations of the monitoring
walls which wara installed either during the R1 or during
previous site investigations. The wells include shallow
monitoring walls, which allows for the characterization of
groundwater quality at depths of lass than 50 feet and deep
monitoring walls which allow for the characterization of
groundwater quality a depth of ranging from 50 to over 125
feat. These walls provide information on groundwater quality
at various steps within the Cohansay sand. The Cohansey sand
is underlain by the Kirkwood formation, whose upper portion is
characterized by the presence of a gray clay layer which
prevents further downward migration of groundwater
contamination.
The arrows on this figure show the dlractlon of groundwater
flow which is from the northeast to the southwest. These
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
Ifl
17
18
IS
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
monitoring walls have been sampled and analyzed for a variety
of potential contaminants. Additionally, sone of the wells
continue to be sampled on a monthly, quarterly, or annual
basis.
The analysis of the groundwater samples has identified the
presence of volatile organics and metals in the groundwater.
The main volatile organic compound detected in the groundwater
is Trichloroethene, or (TCE), which as Donna mentioned earlier,
has historically been used for a variety of commercial,
industrial, and residential cleaning, purposes. The major
inorganics detected in the groundwater are chromium, lead, and
antimony.
These next few slides will provide you with an indication
of the extent of groundwater contamination based on sampling
which was conducted in April of this year. This slide shows
the extent of chromium contamination in the shallow monitoring
wells. For reference purposes, the drinking water standard for
chromium is 100 parts per billion. As you can see, the
contamination is centered on the manufacturing area and extends
bo the southwest. Contaminant l«vals have decreased since the
time the RI was conducted. When the RI was conducted, the
sxtraction system was operating at 200 gallons per minute
rather than 400 gallons per minute and levels as high as 20,000
parts per billion of chromium were detected in some of these
fells.
-------
1
2
3
4
$
6
7
8
g
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
This slide show the extent of chroniua contamination
within the deep monitoring wells. Again, the contamination is
centered down gradient to the lagoon area and extends to the
southwest. During the RZ contaminant levels as high as 100,000
parts per billion were detected in some of the monitoring
wells.
This slide shows the extent of the trichloroethene, or TCE
plume in the shallow monitoring wells as of April. The
drinking water standard for TCE is one part per billion. The
contamination appears to be centered beneath the former
location of the degreesing unit and extends to the southwest.
Again, contaminant levels have decreased since the RI when
levels as high as 800 parts per billion were detected in some
wells.
And this slide shows the extent of TCE in the deep aquifer
or in the deep monitoring wells. The contamination is centered
down gradient toward the shallow contamination, and again, it
extends to the southwest, and as with the shallow monitoring
walls, ths deep monitoring wells in the plant area have
exhibited a decrease in TC TCE levels since the RI was
conducted.
A human health risk assessment was conducted to evaluate
potential risks to human health based on exposures to
groundwater. The risk assessment focused on potential exposure
bo groundwater south of the facility since exposures southwest
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
1B
17
18
IB
20
21
22
23
24
25
of the facility are limited by the present of the well
restriction area. The risk assessnent was based on a series of
conservative assumptions. First, that a home served by a
private well is located immediately south of the facility.
Second, that concentrations in that well are identical to the
concentrations that were detected on site during the Rl,
although as I presented earlier, concentrations had decreased
since the RI was conducted. Third, that a person would drink
the groundwater for a period of 30 years at the rate of two
liters or a little'over a half a gallon per day, and that that
person would also be exposed to groundwater during showering.
The risk estimated to this exposure scenario was above
acceptable limits which indicates that a remedial response is
appropriate, however, I'd like to emphasize that neither New
Jersey DEP, nor Shieldalloy, intend to allow such an exposure
to occur, and that the remedial system will be is designed
to prevent such an exposure from ever occurring, so based on
the results of the remedial investigation and the risk
assessment, remedial response objectives were developed.
These objectives include preventing exposure due to
ingestion of the contaminated groundwater, preventing migration
of the contaminated groundwater, and remediating the
groundwater contamination which is attributable to Shieldalloy.
Based on these remedial response objectives, a feasibility
study focused on groundwater remediation was conducted.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
e
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
30
21
22
23
24
25
16
This slide shows the elements of a feasibility study.
Initially, remedial technologies are identified and screened to
determine which technologies are Boat appropriate for use at
the site. The technologies are then assembled into reaedial
alternatives which undergo a detailed evaluation based on nine
criteria which are defined in federal regulations.
The groundwater reaedial alternatives developed for the
Shieldalloy focused feasibility study are listed here. The
first alternative is the no action alternative, and that Bust
be considered under federal regulations. The second
alternative is a groundwater restoration alternative which
conplies with the requirements of the 1988 administrative
consent order, and this alternative included ion exchange as
the treatment aethodology. We also looked at a third
alternative which we refer to as a modified groundwater
restoration alternative. Under this third alternative, the
modified groundwater restoration alternative, we looked at a
variety of extraction treatment and discharge actions. Under
the extraction operations, we looked at using the existing
groundwater extraction system and using a modified groundwater
extraction system in which which would be designed on the
basis of groundwater modelling to optimize the extraction of
the contaminated groundwater.
For the treatment technologies, we looked at organic
treatment technologies and inorganic treatment technologies.
-------
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
27
23
24
25
17
of these technologies listed hare, airstripping and
electrochemical treatment are the technologies which are
currently used at the site, and they've been successful in
meeting the current discharge requirements, therefore, they
offer some implementations! advantages over the other treatment
technologies.
The discharge options which were considered include
discharge to groundwater, discharge to surface water, and a
combined discharge to groundwater and surface water.
Each of the remedial alternatives and the associated
extraction, treatment, and discharge options were evaluated
based on these nine criteria. The alternatives and their
evaluation are defined are described in more detail in your
proposed plan.
Compliance with this last criteria and'community acceptance
will be determined based on the verbal comments that are
received here tonight as well as on written comments, which
as was mentioned earlier, will be accepted through September
25th, but based on the detailed analysis of the alternatives,
preferred remedy was selactad for the groundwater operable
unit, and Donna Gaffigan of New Jersey DEP will now present
that preferred remedy.
MS. GAFFIGAN: Based on an evaluation of the various
alternatives, DEP prefers alternative three, modified
groundwater restoration. Th« options under alternative three
-------
1
2
2
4
5
6
7
8
D
10
11
12
13
14
IS
ie
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
include modified extraction system, airstripping for removal of
the organic contamination, electrochemical treatment with
supplemental treatment if necessary for inorganic
contamination, and discharge to the surface water.
This slide shows the modified groundwater extraction system
which includes one deep -- this one's deep, and three shallow
monitoring or recovery wella in addition to the five already
existing wella. These additional wells will better capture the
contamination and the groundwater down gradient of the site
while also providing extraction of contamination near the on
site sources of contamination.
The locations of the proposed wells are based on
groundwater modelling which was conducted aa part of the
focused feasibility study, however, the exact number and
locations of the wella may be modified based on additional
information that will ba collected during the design phase of
the project. The extraction ayatem will alao include
remediation of the volatile organic compounds attributable to
Shieldalloy. Groundwater will continue to ba extracted at a
rata of about 400 gallons par minute unless it's modified again
during the design phase.
The discharge to aurface water is still the preferred
nethod for dealing with the treated groundwater. The treated
groundwater will meet discharge limita from a permit before it
La discharged to the Hudson Branch through out fall n-o-i.
-------
1
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
To remove inorganic contamination from the recovered
groundwater electrochemical treatment will continue to be used
because it has proved to be more effective than ion exchange.
This slide shows the basics of the electrochemical treatment
system. In electrochemical treatment the groundwater from all
the extraction wells is combined into one tank. From there it
enters the electrochemical cell where an electric current is
passed through an iron electrode that causes a chemical
reaction to the contaminants in the groundwater. The water
then enters a degassing tank where hydrogen gas is produced by
the chemical reactions is released in very low concentrations.
After this the groundwater enters a settling tank where the
particulates settle out as solid matter. The water is then
filtered to remove suspended solids which are the materials
that float and did not settle out in the last tank. Then the
water ie tested and discharged to the surface water. The
solids go through a filter press to remove a lot of the excess
water, and then it's properly disposed off site after being
tested. The electrochemical treatment system will provide the
sole inorganic treatment method -if the permit limits can be
achieved.
Okay. Removal of some of the volatile organics will occur
will likely occur during the degassing step of the
electrochemical treatment process. Additional VOC removal will
be provided by the use of the existing airstripper. This slide
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
show the components of the airstripper. An airstripper is a
column that is filled with packing material such as thsss. The
groundwater containing tha volatile organics flows down from
the top of the column where it is agitated by passing through
the plastic shapes. At the same time a blower blows air up
from the bottom which causes more agitation of the water and
evaporation of the volatile organics. The treated water then
exits out the bottom, and the volatile organics exit out tha
top. So far the volume or the amount of volatile organics that
are released from the top of the stack have not needed a
permit. If anything changes in the future, a permit will be
evaluated.
Alternative three also includes ongoing monitoring program.
Groundwater monitoring is required to confirm that the system
is effectively cleaning up the aquifer. Monitoring of the
treated water is required to make sure that the permit limits
are met before it is discharged to the Hudson Branch, in |
addition, this remedial action decision will be reviewed in
five years to insure that it remains protective of human health I
i
and the environment. This Is required by federal regulation.
In conclusion, DEP believes that the preferred remedy meets
eight of the nine Superfund criteria that Jean had just
mentioned. The ninth criteria, community acceptance, is a
vital part of the process. The proposed plan and this public
meeting provide you with the opportunity to comment on tne
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
preferred remedial action of the groundwater at Shieldalloy.
This concludes ny presentation, and I'll turn the 'Meting back
over to Pan.
MS. LANGE: Okay. Next, which isn't on our agenda,
right before the we get to the question and answer, I would
like again to introduce Andrea Edwards of Senator Lautenberg's
office. Andrea is the Director of special Projects of southeml
New Jersey. Her office is located in Barrington, and she has a|
statement that she would like to read to us here tonight.
MS. EDWARDS: Can everyone hear me, or do you want ne
to use the microphone?
MS. LANGE: (No verbal response.)
MS. EDWARDS: Everybody can hear? Okay. I've worked
with a lot of you over the years on the site, and the senator
is not able to here this evening, but as you know, there are a
lot of things happening in Washington that don't particularly
have to do with this site but the entire Superfund program, so
I have a statement here from the Senator tonight that I'd like
to read.
"Dear Friends, I'm sorry I could not be here with you this
evening. As much as I had hoped to be with you, Senate
business requires my presence in Washington.
As many of you know, during the last peveral years, I have
worked with members of this community on the cleanup of the
Shieldalloy Superfund site. Throughout the years, we have
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
IS
17
18
19
20
21
23
23
24
25
22
faced many frustrations and attempted to work through th«n to
ensure that the sits is cleaned up. Z believe that the current
Superfund program is not perfect, but we need the program to
ensure that toxic waste sites are cleaned up, and the health of
the public and the environnent are preserved.
The Superfund program is under attack on many fronts. I aa
especially concerned about proposed budget cuts that will have
devastating effect not only on KPA's ability to protect the
environment, but also on delaying the cleanup of many Superfund
sites in New Jersey. I aa actively fighting these cuts in the
Senate, and will do my best to ensure sufficient funds to clean
up the site, even in the face of a strong desire on the part of
Congressional leadership to cut funding for environmental
programs.
Tonight's forum is important, because we will be hearing
from the experts about the preferred alternative for the
groundwater cleanup. Many of you have been involved in
ensuring the actions of the responsible parties and the
agencies reflect the needs of the community, and I supported
your efforts in bringing that m«fcsage to the State DEP, the EPA
and the HRC. I will continue to work with all of you to see
that your questions are answered.
While there is still much to be accomplished in order for
the cleanup to be declared complete, we have seen a number of
successes along the way, thanks to the diligent efforts of many
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1?
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
of you hare tonight. I urge you to continue to be informed and
seek answers from the agencies. My staff stands ready to
assist you in this effort and in ensuring that the site is
cleaned up. And, I will continue to fight for an effective
Superfund program while Congress considers reauthorization of
the program and will resist efforts to abandon Superfund or
turn the cost of the cleanup over to the taxpayers.
I hope that you will remain active in this effort, and I
urge you to reach out to your local officials and Congressional
representatives to let them know the importance of keeping a
responsible Superfund program alive which protects public
health and the environment for today and the future
generations. I appreciate your activism. Sincerely, Frank R.
Lautenberg, United States Senator." Thank you.
MS. LANGE: Thank you, Andrea. Okay. At this time, I
would like I would urge people who would like to cone
forward to ask questions concerning the presentation that you
have just heard. All what I ask is that you coma up to the
microphone in the center of the room, state your nana clearly,
and spell it so the transcriber can make sure he gets the name
right, and we will do our best to answer any questions that you
At this time is there anybody who would like to cone
ard? Please do so. Come on up.
MS. MADDEN: Do I have can they hear ne fron here?
MS. LANGE: Hell, it's' for the transcriber. «<> i
-------
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
e
s
to
ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2fl
21
22
23
24
25
24
really like you to cone up to the aicrophone. It's not to put
you on the spot.
MS. madden: x'va baan thara bafora.
MS. LANGE: Okay.
MS. MADDEN: My naaa ia Pati Maddan, P-A-T-I, M-A-D-D-
E-N. I bava a quastion about tha VOC'a that vara baing
ralaasad into tha air. You said that it's not at a haraful
laval at this tiM. What is considarad safe, and at what
laval do you know vhat I'b saying? Do you hava any nunbars?
Is that --?
MS. GAFFIGAN: Yes, I don't hava tha nuabera, but tha
aaount that's ralaasad is below a liait that would raquira a
parnit. I don't hava tha permit nuabars
MS. MADDEN: So would ?
MS. GAFFIGAN: of toxic volatila organics handy,
but it's balow that limit, and as wa do tha additional recovery
put in thasa other walls, we Bay be pulling in higher
concentrations in tha water which may result in higher
concentrations being released and at which time we will eval
reevaluate the need for a permit.
MS. MADDEN: Is there any way that I can get a copy of
the nuabers that are being released how and what is considered
unsafe -- at what tiaa you would start aonitoring something?
MS. GAFFIGAN: Yes. I could send you a copy of tha
regulation that lists three concentrations that are pernutabie,
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
and X could also give you the information of what's being
ralaasad.
MS. MADDEN: Okay. Does -- is thara anybody alsa?
Can -- I hava another question? If I can ?
MS. LANGE: State who you are.
MR. VALENTI: Jim Valenti, Shieldalloy. The
airstripper had a permit for five years, and that was obtained
in anticipation of the numbers that could be seen from the
recovery wells. After five years and monitoring the levels
monthly, we never exceeded 100 parts per billion total volatile
organics, so at the end of five years the permit was up: for
renewal, and it was terminated. It was determined to be not
necessary, so the answer to your question would be it never
exceeded 100 parts per billion, and therefore, the permit was
not renewed.
MS. MADDEN: It never exceeded 100 billion?
MR. VALENTI: Never exceed 100 parts per billion.
MS. MADDEN: So 100 parts per billion is where it
would then go into ?
MR. VALENTI: That would be into the influent coainq
into the airstripper.
MS. MADDEN: All right. My next question can I do
Lt from here? The health risk assessment. You said that there
las been one done. Now, we've discussed this once before in --
Ln a different meeting, and I'm really not clear on this. Tfte
-------
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
ie
17
18
19
30
21
22
23
24
25
26
health risk assessment that was done, was that done on all the
contaminated wells or on the wells after the contamination was
the wells were restricted, and we got the city water in?
MS. OLIVA: The the risk assessment just looked at
data from on site monitoring wells and based the risk estimates
on that data,
MS. MADDEN: only on the --?
MS. OLIVA: so it was as if somebody was drinking
water from some of the on site wells.
MS. MADDEN: Okay, so the fact that tie were drinking
the water with the VOC's are -- we're not considered in that
risk assessment. It's just on your monitoring wells that the
assessment was done?
MS. OLIVA: The assessment was done on the monitoring
wells.
MS. MADDEN: okay, and then you said something about
the amounts have to be identical, so if my well had 3200 parts
per billion and yours only had 100 or 10,000, they're not
considered identical, and we wouldn't be considered?
MS. OLIVA: Why I'm "the right.
MS. MADDEN: I mean if that's I'm confused on that
fact, and that's what I ?
MS. OLIVA: Sure. Thai the assumptions that were
used in the risk assessment were that someone would be drinking
the levels of contaminants that were in those four on site
-------
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
B
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
10
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
walla in 1990 or '91 when the RI waa conducted, ao it's based
on those numbers. You know, If your nuabers are different
HS. MADDEN: Okay. What were the levela at that tine?
MS. OLIVA: It the risk calculated and the riak
¦sessaent
MS. LANGE: Can can Donna Interrupt you a ainute?
MS. OLIVA: Sura.
MS. GAFFIGAN: The reaaon for the risk assessment la
to show that the contaainanta are high enough to require
reaedial action. The assuaptions in the riak assessnent were
based on on aite walls, becauae they exhibited the highest
concentrationa or aoae of the higheat concentrations which
showed, yes, there is a clear need for reaediation to go on
hare. Soaa of the other wells aay have been higher, but using
the data that was used showed that the risk was phenonenal;
that reaedial action needed to be taken.
MS. MADDEM: Okay, and that was done in 1990?
MS. GAFFIGAN: Based on the data froa 1990.
MS. MADDEN: And it's done for anybody drinking a half
a gallon of water for 30 years?'
MS. OLIVA: Two liters of water per day for 30 years.
There is also a a dermal exposure and an inhalation exposure
luring showering.
MS. MADDEN: Now,.is this at like the local library,
ar is this a report that we can get?
-------
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
IB
17
18
IB
20
21
22
23
24
25
jl
28
MS. GAFFIGAN: Yes. I think it was put in last month.
MS. MADDEN: oh, okay. All right, and is tha Cohanaay
aquifer affected?
MS. GAFFZGAN: Yas. That's tha aquifar that we're
talking about.
MS. MADDEN: That's what I want to okay. You did a
pictura of tast walls. Is that all tha tasts walls that you
had, bacausa I notad thay had baan putting sore tast walls in?
MS. OLIVA: Right. Thara.'s ona additional tast wall
that was not on that figure that has baan installed, and that
thara is no data available for that wall yat.
MS. MADDEN: And whan you'ra going into privata
rasidanca and putting tast wells on thara, is there a reason
why tha people were not told why, what the reasons are, or
anything like that? Like we're just told the DEP has told us
to do this, so you know, I aean if we're supposed to be getting
copies of the reports, and I know they never have ?
MS. LANGE: If you have questions, you give us a call.
I aean you need to let us know when when you're unsure about
the answer that you're getting. Okay?
MS. GAFFIGAN: But I thought that we need to -- we
need this additional data?
MS. MADDENt Wall, we're supposed to be getcinq
reports, too, and we .haven't gotten those yet either, you know?
MS. GAFFIGAN: We'll have to work on that.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
1«
15
II
17
IB
10
30
21
22
2]
24
21
29
MS. KADDEN; Okay. That's all I have.
MS. LANGS: Ma'11 fix that for you.
MS. MADDEN: Thank you.
MR. LXSI: Hi, I'* John Lisi, L-I-S-I. Whan does tha
modified plan go into affact? What data?
MS. GAFFIGAN: What data? Mall, they're already
thay'ra already pu*ping at tha 400 gallon* par Minute using tha
fiva existing wells.
MR. LZSI: Right.
MS. GATFIGAN: After this aeeting, we have the public
coaaent period as still open till September 25th then we have
what's called a record of decision which will take another
¦onth to do, and after that Shieldalloy's obligated to perform
the rest of the stuff.
' I
MR. LISI: When does that plan get published the
schedule?
MS. GAFFIGAN: Probably well, at least towards the
end of the year when they're going to be installed.
MR. LXSX: And how do we get notified of that?
MS. GAFFXSAM: Nell, iC*s not really part of the
process, but
MS. LANGS: If you if you want either
MR. LXS1: No, X'a talking about the Modified plan.
You referred to a Modified plan going into effect. My question
is what is the schedule for it, and how do we get notified?
-------
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
IB
17
18
19
30
21
22
23
24
25
30
MS. GAFFIGAN: Okay. Well, the the record of
decision is a formal docunent. EPA, hopefully, will concur
with it. Our assistant comnissioner will sign it, and that
becones a contract that Shieldalloy has to oblige to then we
after that we work out a schedule of how and when everything's
going to go into place?
MR. LISI: And how does that becoae public?
KS. LANGE: The record of decision is a public
docuaent, but if we can easily if you you've left your
naae and address?
MR. LISI: Un-hua. Yes.
MS. LANGE: He'd be sore than happy to let you know
when that becoaes available.
MR. LISI: Okay.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Sign up on the sailing list.
MR. LISI: I'a sorry?
MS. LANGE: Not not all things go out on the
nailing list, but if this but if this is soaething that you
would lika, if you want to im the schedule, we'd be store than
happy to provide a schedule to whatever the Bailing list ends
up-being after this aeeting so people know where we're where
we're going froa here as a result of these discussions.
MR. LISI: Okay, so the schedule will be part of the
sailing that we get
MS. LANGE: Yea.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
it
>2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
311
NR. LISI: as part of tha Bailing list?
MS. LANGE: Sura.
MR. LISI: Hill thara be ongoing public Mating* lika
this?
MS. GAFFIGAN: Thara will ba anothar public seating
hald for tha othar operabla unit which ia soils, aurfaca water,
and sedisent, but not for tha groundwatar.
NR. LISI: So wa naad to dapand on tha Bailing to
notify us of tha achadula?
MS. LANGE: And also tha racord of dacision will ba
put in tha repository,
MS. GAFFIGAN: Yes, it's in tha repository.
MS. LANGE: so it will ba in tha local library.
MR. LISI: Okay.
MS. LANGE: Okay, and that's part of it part of tha
whole process.
MR. LISI: I got hare soaewhat lata, so I'b not sura I
saw all the presentation, but were there any results in the
presentation? I aaan you talked about tha plan, but what I
didn't see are results. You know, what ia the curve of
concentrations over the number of years that the nonitoring has
been going on, and where where is that a utter of public
record?
MS. OLIVA: That that shows that poster board
shows TCE levels in April of 1991, and in your handout you have
-------
1
2
3
4
s
fl
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
IS
IB
17
IB
IB
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
a a very sinilar figure showing TCE levels in
MR. LISI: For '95.
MS. OLIVA: -- April, 1995, so if you want to get an
idea, you can compare those two.
MR. LISI: Is there a copy of that available?
MS. OLIVA: It is in the remedial investigation
report, which is at the library.
MS. LISI: Mhat I'm really interested in is how do we
track the results along with you? You know the plan's great,
but the bottoa line is what the result is, and that's in a
MS. GAFFIGAN: A part a lot of these documents go
into the repository, so you're welcome to come and look at
the*, and I don't send out a formal sailing every aonth of
what's happened on the site.
MR. LISI: No, I don't expect every aonth. I mean
once a year, once every two years, but some regular tracking so
that the public can participate in the process.
MS. LANGB: Nell, those things will go into the
will will go into the repository. What we will decide is
the frequency of the monitoring like are we going to monitor it
quarterly or every six months, for how long, and look at the
bow the plume develops, or, hopefully, you know, is
MR. LISI: Undevelops.
MS. LANGE: is taken in by, and those reports will
om required to be sent to the department, and in turn the
-------
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
18
17
18
IS
30
21
22
23
24
25
33
departaent will put those in the repository for you to take a
look at.
NR. LISX: Thank you.
MS. OLXVA; I guesB if you'd like, I can give you an
example for tha chroniun, that's tha TCS, but for the chroaiua
in tha shallow aonitoring walls, at tha saae tiae thosa samples
were collected in 1990 91, the aaxiaua levels were over
let »e aake sure 1 get this right 30,000 parts per billion,
and now our aaxiaua levels are over ten I'b sorry over
1,000 parts per billion, so that gives you an idea.
MR. LXSI: And that's right on site? That is right on
site?
MS. OLXVA: On site and to tha southwest.
MR. LXSXs And to the southwest, im-hua. Okay.
Thank you.
MS. CAVANAUGH: My naae is Suzanne Cevanaugh, c-a-v-a-
n-a-U-g-H, and X wanted to know if the risk assessment was
based just on the VOC's, or did you include the other cheaicals
in the risk assessaent?
MS. OLXVA: It was based on all the cheaicals that
were detected at the site. Those cheaicals which were
considered to be of concern with respect to health.
MS. CAVANAUGH: okay. Thank you.
MR. PUGHt Ken Pugh, P-U-G-H. As a Vice Prescient.
General Manger for Shieldalloy, I want to thank DEP. rc«",
-------
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
others for their their work, and by way of a coupla of
quaations I want to clarify soaa iteas. Has there avar been a
connection batwaan paat activitiaa or currant activitias at
Shieldalloy and any public health concerns to your knowledge?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Cartainly, if you're a neighbor
the answer's yaa.
MS. GAFTZGAN: Yes, but to ay knowladga and based on
the documents that I've read, no.
NR. PUGH: I think that's an iaportant point, that
although wa certainly recognize their concerns that there's not
a docuaented situation where the public has baan haraad in any
way, although there is certainly risk.
MS. LANGE: I -- X don't want X don't know if you
can say that as a fair atataaant, because it depends on your
definition of tiara, and X don't think that we're here tonight
to talk about the dafinition of bars, because soaeone not being
able to use thair well aay be considered hara to thea, so
that's -- so X would say that that's not a
MR. PUGH: I'a talking about a public health I'm
talking about a public haalth riak.
MS.* LANGEr Wall, avan so. If paopla can't use their
walls to drink thair watar, ultiaately, that's a public ham
MR. PUGH: But not if thay'ra
MS. LANGE: and a and a public haalth risk to
thea.
-------
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
NR. PUGH: But not if they're connected to a public
systea however.
MS. LANGE: I'b not disagreeing with that. What I'm
saying is though the activities of shieldalloy and the
discharges that occurred especially from the chroniua and the
degreasing areas, did indeed contaminate the aquifer which aade
the well water around the area unavailable
MR. PUGH: No question.
MS. LANGE: for use by the citizen*.
MR. PUGH: No question about that.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: See, now this
MS. LANGE: Can you please hold it until Mr. Pugh is
done and then ?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (No verbal response.)
MS. LANGE: Thank you.
MR. PUGH: There was a mention of some high
potential higher levels of VOC's in in wells. X believe Ms.
Madden expressed that opinion.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can we get the microphone
turned up? He can't hear anything back here.
MS. LANGE: You're going to have to talk loud. That
microphone isn't hooked up.
MR. PUGH: That's dead, huh?
MS. LANGE: That's for the transcriber.
MR. PUGH: Yes, I understand.
-------
36
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Why don't you pick up on* of
the microphones on the table?
MS. LANGE: Well, it's only this one.
NR. PUGH: Ny question revolves around the the
higher levels of VOC's that Ms. Madden referred to in in
essentially her wells or others, and this are obvious areas
outside of SMC, and I know you've got'an investigation going on
as far as other potential sources, but isn't it true that sone
of these higher levels in areas outside of SMC say not be
associated with SMC at all?
MS. GAFFIGAN: It's true that they say not, but we
haven't conclusively shown that yet.
MR. PUGH: I understand, and isn't it also true that
only SMC has been identified at this point, and only SMC is
involved in remediation of of not only the site but but
also the groundwater as opposed to possibly other potential
sources for VOC's?
MS. GAFFIGAN: Shieldalloy identified itself as a user
of a TCE.
MR. PUGH: Correct.
MS. GAFFIGAN: We have extensive data showing
contamination at and enanating froa your site.
MR. PUGH: Absolutely, but we are the only ones that
are cleaning it up at this point.
MS. GAFFIGAN: At this point, yes.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
IB
17
18
IS
20
21
22
23
24
25
37
MS. LANGE: Yes.
MR. PUGH: Yes. Z guess I just wanted to point out
that we are committed to the plan. Ha appreciate all the work
that's bean done. As you mentioned, we've been in the process
for a number of years. We do believe it's a good system, and
we will be coaaitted to cleaning it up. We certainly recognize
that we did contaminate many years ago when it was legal to
have those activities at that tlae. Obviously, since then
we've all learned a lot as far as environmental is concerned,
but you will get the coaaitaent of Shieldalloy. We certainly
appreciate the coaaitaent of the DEP. Thank you.
MS. LANGE: Sir?
MR. LISI: Yes, I just wanted to challenge the preaise
that there's never been any detriaental effects. You know,
perhaps today with the better operational aspects of the plant,
they're auch, auch reduced, but years ago you could not even
drive down the boulevard on certain'nights when there were
discharges in the air, and I realize this is a water aeeting,
but the data's here with regard to the water, also, so to claia
that there haven't ever been an/ detriaental effects I think is
wrong.
MS. LANGE: Thank you.
MR. PUGH: If I aay? I Z would never claim that
there were never any detriaental effects. That that would
y ludicrous, but what I what I wanted the point I wane
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
IB
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
to get across is there's been no connection between a public
health illness, cancer, deaths, increased deaths, etc., and the
activities of Shieldalloy. That's all I'm trying to get
across.
MS. MADDEN: Yet. Yet it has not been proven.
MR. PUGH: Yet, there has not been proven.
Absolutely. Okay. There have been studies, and it's not been
proven, but you're correct. You know it's never finished. I
agree with you. My point is that jLt's not been proven that
there has been any connections.
MS. MADDEN: They haven't done any health studies yet
MR. BOYER: If 1 can clarify that. I work for the
State. My name's John Boyer. I'a the technical coordinator.
I. think what the gentleaen is saying is we're trying to compare
apples and oranges, our job in investigating this site and
coming up with the remedial alternative is not designed to
determine whether there's been a public impact of the type
where we have documented cancer cases; where we have documented
illnesses. That's that's not a role we play. That's
usually something that's done by the department of health or
the county health departments. Me look at it from a
perspective of are there contaminants? Is there a potential
that they may be exposed to receptors, people, or environmental
receptors, and then based on that, do we need to clean it up,
so I don't want us to get confused or or get off the -- t.c
-------
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
ie
17
18
10
30
21
22
23
24
25
39
subject here, but our role is to determine whether we have to
clean it up or not. We do not look at directly at public
health concerns, cancer studies, and the like, so it's it's
it's a little bit of comparing apples and orangea, so I
think we need to -- it would be best if we just leave the
subject alone, because we can't answer that. The State cannot
say that, because we did not look at that.
MS. MADDEN: In -- just to say something on that, and
I don't aean to keep pushing it in, but the residents of
Vineland and Newfield have at many occasions at these neetings
stressed a deep concern to have a cancer cluster study done, to
have a health risk study done, and this is the first one in
1990 that I aa getting results that there was actually one
done. He keep getting that there's no cause for it, but if you
live in the area and do know people in the area, there has been
a lot of people that have died recently and long ago from
cancers, -but we have never been able to get a study done.
MS. GAFFXGAN: Last year Z sent you a letter
summarizing sob* of the results that our health department had
don* or at least that with ntftaes of people who are working
o» .
MS. MADDEN: I never got it.
MS. GAFFIGAN: It was February, '94 that the agency
for toxic substance and disease registry as part of Superfund
does a health assessment, I believe it's called. They've
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
ie
17
IB
10
30
21
22
23
24
25
40
reviewed that. I believe the the person's name ie Arthur
Block who you could contact about getting the draft of that.
It was ay understanding at that time that ATSDR, as the agency
is known, was thinking of other like an addendum to that
study which is not a cancer cluster study. It's a health
assessment, and I don't remember the exact definition of what
their health assessment is.
At the same time, our Department of Health was looking at
some information that they had contacted the Vineland Health
Department and looked at some information. The person the
people who -- the contacts over at our Department of Health, I
don't remember their names, but Z could easily get thea for you
as well as the person at ATSDR to follow up on some of that
information.
MS. MADDEN: I remember talking to Nr. Cochran.
MS. GAFFIGAN: Nr. Block. Arthur Block. Yes.
KS. MADDEN: I remember talking to him, but that was
like .
MS. GAFPIGAM: Like Z said, our risk assessment that
is required by us under superfund shows that whether or not
remedial action is necessary to prevent future risks we don't
necessarily focus on past risks, which is part of what, you
lenow, ATSDR and the Department of Health can look at. Health
departments could focus more on that. Unfortunately, that's
the that's the different roles of all the different players.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
IB
17
18
1B
20
21
22
23
24
2S
MS. MADDEN: But you can understand our frustrations?
MS. GAFFIGAN: Yes. Yes.
MS. LANCE: If you didn't get the letter,
MS. MADDEN: I don't renember that letter.
MS. LANGE: that's Donna can can send you a
copy of it. She still has it.
MS. GAFFIGAN: The nanes of the people may have
changed.
MS. LANGE: But the the phone nuabers and addresses
should all be the sane.
MS. GAFFIGAN: You know everyone changes.
MS. NIUK: I as a new resident. My nase, Marcy
Niuk, M-A-R-C-Y, N-I-U-K. I mm a new resident of Newfield, and
I want to know from where we have now water, and what about the
toxic waste?
MS. GAFFIGAN: Of the well water?
MS. NIUK: No. No. No. I don't have the well
well water. I have the city water, and froe where we have
water now, and what about this water, and what about the toxic
toxic waste?
MS. GAFFIGAN: Okay. The water that's supplied by the
City
MS. NIUK: Yes?
MS. GAFFIGAN: either fro* the Newfield Water
Department or the Vineland Water Departaent I'» not sure
-------
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
IB
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
where you're located. Which?
MS. NIUK: Hanpton on the west side.
MS. GAFFIGAN: Okay. Hell, probably probably
Newfield water. Aa public purveyor of water, they have to teat
it and insure that it aeeta all the safe drinking water
requirenents, so the water that you're drinking is safe, and
the toxic waste, I'm not sure what you Man by that.
MS. NIUK: About the toxic waste what Shieldalloy
has on the backyard.
MS. GAFFIGAN: Oh, the materials stored in the back?
MS. NIUX: Yes.
MS. GAFFIGAN: A lot of that is regulated by the
nuclear regulatory commission, and they're the ones that have
to answer questions on that specifically.
MS. NIUK: Okay. Thank you.
MS. MATASET: I'm Liz Mataset, Community Relations.
Just to give you a little .more information, if you have city
water, you should be able to call the purveyor. If you have
:ity water you should be able to call whoever you pay your bill
to and ask them where their we irk are located, and they'll tell
fou that, if they treat the water, and what they treat it for,
10 you should be able to get that information from thee.
MS. LANGE: And also the water company on its site
fill have all the records of all the testing
MS. MATASET: Right.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43
MS. LANGE: that they do on on a daily, monthly,
quarterly basis. They have to keep that information at the
water, and it is available to you to look at.
NR. LISZ: I'm not sure who this question should be
directed to, but is shieldalloy still tied into the the
water you know, the department in Newfield? Is there still
a tie there? VeS? No?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes.
MR. LISI: We are tied in?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes.
MR. LISI: Are you still using the water or the
processed water, or is the treated water we use the processed
water?
MR. PUGH: Me use both.
MR. LISI: Both.
MR. PUGH: He treat it as wall as .
MR. LISI: How is that regulated? What you know,
what determines what- is used?
MR. PUGH: Me attempt to use the treated water for
noncontact what's called noncontact water based on
exchanging. The borough water is used for soma of the
facilities discussed. There are tines when the borouqh water-
pressure could be low in our systea and we'll work off the
borough's supply.
MR. LISI: Because I'm a property owner adjarpnr
-------
1
\2
3
«
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
you* property down there.
MS. LANGE: Excuse me. Could you just speak up a
little bit, so the transcriber -- the transcriber needs to hear
you. That's the problea here. I want to sake sure we get
everything down, so .
MR. LISX: Fine. See I'm a property owner adjacent to
your property, and at times there are wide fluctuations in
pressure. Nowhere near as bad as it used to be, so I was just
wondering whet the connection is, because it has an advsrse
effect on the quality of the water coaing into our houss froa
Newfield Borough because of the apparently the churning in
the sains.
MR. PUGH: Well, we we certainly don't know what
causes it, but certainly, about six-eight aontha ago this was
an issue that was raised with Shieldalloy that it was thought
that our large draws of water at tiaes would lower the pressure
in that end of the systea. It was the major reason why we put
in the recirculating water system using our -- our cleaned up
water. At this point, our water draw is only about 70 to 70
excuse ma 25 percent of what'it used to be, so if you're
continuing to have troubles, I would suggest that you contact
koaeone within the water department, because frankly, I don't
I don't think that's that's the way it
MR. LISI: No. It's it's much better recently the
Last, like you say, eight or nina months.
-------
1
7
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45|
MR. PUGH: Right.
MR. LISI: There's a very significant difference in
the quality of the water upwards so I thank, you for that.
MR. PUGH: Right.
MR. LXSX: X do have pressure gauges on uy system so I|
could see exactly when the system is changing and by what
magnitude, also.
MR. PUGH: Yes. By the way, we have problems at a
while back they were going through and opening up the hydrants
to flush the system, and we had a similar problem with low
pressure. X don't know if that might have been the periods
that you had problems.
MS. LANGE: Just state your name again for the
MS. MADDEN: Pati Madden. When the water is being
discharged back into the Hudson Branch, does that still have
voc's. and chromium in it, or is that totally clear? Xs that
now considered safe, or does that still have levels in it?
MS. GAFFIGAN: It'a meeting the permit requirements,
so it's
MS. MADDEN: It's meetfhg the requirements,
MS. GAFFXGAN: Permit requirements.
MS. MADDEN: so in other words, it still does have
some of the ?
MS. GAFFIGAN: But it's less than drinking water
standards, so that's tremendously Inferior.
0
\
-------
1
2
3
4
5
0
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
MS. LANGE: It the the discharge Units would be
based on its effect in the stream and the critters that live
there, and it has to be .
MS. MADDEN: Do they have to hava permits in order to
dump this back into the stream?
MS. LANGE: Oh, yes.
MS. GAFFIGAN: Oh, yes.
MS. LANGE: Yes, and those and those permit limits
are determined by what the water quality in the stream is, and
the environmental receptors are usually extremely more
sensitive than we would be, and so those numbers are lower than
drinking water standards usually are.
MS. GAFFIGAN: And the concentrations that have been
discharged are below the detection limits for the chromium.
MS. WILLIAMS: Loretta Williams, 310 Oakwood Drive,
Newfield. My name is spelled W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S. You said that
there was a health assessment.
MS. LANGE: Speak up a little bit. The people can't
hear you.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: "Can you have the microphone
vary loud, please? We don't hear anything on this whole
meeting.
MS. LANGE: Here you go. Step right up.
MS. WILLIAMS: You said there was a health a health,
assessment dona by the State of New Jersey?
/
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
HS. GAFFIGAN: It was by the Agency of Toxic Substance
and Disease Control which is an arm of EPA.
MS. WILLIAMS: Has the Borough of Newfield and the
City of Vineland gottan any information written information
about that?
MS. GAFFIGAN: Thay should've been sant copias of it.
I had racaivad copias of it way back, and I'm pretty sure that
the distribution list included .
KS. WILLIAMS: I was wondering if it could be sent
again, because I
MS. GAFFIGAN: Sure.
MS. WILLIAMS: I didn't know. When when was
this supposed to be sent sent? I aean last year?
MS. GAFFIGAN: Probably a year or so ago. It was a
while back. They were supposed to do an update on it a couple
years ago, so .
MS. WILLIAMS: I had last year I visited
Shieldalloy, and I toured their water filtering system, and
they explained it. I don't know if I understood all of it, but
I think z have to say I think they're doing a good job at this
point. For years they were terrible polluter, with thair
other administration this administration, in my opinion, is
trying. I don't know if it's I can't ~ you know, I'm not
sure it'a not 100 percent. I'm sure that, you know, in time
they can iaprove it even more, but they really are trying. But ,
-------
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
I -- I don't believe that there hasn't been any health affacta
ovar tha years from Shieldalloy, because I know that there
were aany people that died froa cancer. I know a faaily
about six aeabers of their their faaily had cancer, so I
aean I don't think the truth should be distorted here. I think
there are health risks, and I believe this Gloucester County
Health Department of sone years a few years back did a I
don't know if was Gloucester County or the State or State
Health Departaant had done soaa kind of they say cluster study.
They sent a copy of it. I don't reaeaber the date, but what
they did when they evaluated it, they went by the overall
cancer rate in the State, and I guess they went by population -
- size of town. To ae that's not a cluster study. A cluster
study would be street by street. You know? How aany people
died of cancer? Row aany people have contracted cancer, you
know, over the years in the particular areas particularly
closer to Shieldalloy.
There are other polluters, also. There was a glass company
~ Andrews Glass a few years back. I think they were cited (or
for polluting. Marshall Service was also fined about three
or four years ago. Shieldalloy isn't the only polluter, but
unfortunately, over the years there was adainistrations in chat
conpany that just didn't care, and one tiae, 1 guess, it was
legal to put it in the ground before the environaenta1 Ijws.
and X can't fault thea for that, but even after, I mean people
-------
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
0
10
It
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
aysalt and other people have called Shieldalloy over the
years, and this present administration is the only one that
will go on the phone and talk to you. You know other ones
won't even didn't even get on the phone, and they were very
secretive. Even with, the governing body, they were very
secretive. You know even the mayor, public safety director,
couldn't get information out of
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
IB
20
21
23
23
24
25
50
peraits that they have, but you know, I don't see any problea.
We don't really I don't really deal with active peraits
except for the water that goes out, but I h*ven't heard --
MS. WILLIAMS: Also, ?
MS. GAFFIGAN: you know, I spoke to the air person
today to see if he had any issues, and he said there were no
violations or anything.
MS. WILLIAMS: And also there was the the Newfield
Landfill which was closed in 19S0. There thsre's like
shallow wells there. Has any of is there any any of the
groundwater pollution is any of that as a result of the
what was put in the landfill?
MS. GAFFIGAN: That's hard to say, because that
landfill was under DEP regulation, and then a Court decision
cane out where landfills closed prior to '84 no longer needed
to be aonitored.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. Oh, I see.
MS. GAFFIGAN: I had looked at the year to data that
was generated .
MS. WILLIAMS: They aonitored quite few years
though.
MS. GAFFIGAN: But it wasn't they were shallow
wells or water table wells, and they were aonitored for
landfill paraaeters, iron, nitrates, nitrites, different things
that, really, we weren't looking for at the site.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
S
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
51
MS. WILLIAMS: And also gases alao gases like
methane gas? No?
MS. GAFFIGAN: No, not evan that.
MS. WILLIAMS: Oh, okay.
MS. GAFFIGAN: It was just -- you know, contamination
that's typically found In ¦unicipal landfills, so looking at
tha data didn't raally halp anything. N« do hava soaa
upgradfent data that wa call background data froa Shieldalloy,
but it doasn't raally show a whole lot.
MS. WILLIAMS: And thera was also, yaars back, Kimble
Glass in Vinaland had used our landfill, and thara had been
ruaors that thay found something toxic. I don't know how true
that is, and than after that tha- landfill was closed due to
they wara supposed to put in walls, and thay thay eventually
did put the walls in, and I know that they were aonitored, and
it was costing quite a bit to Monitor. They never found
anything, you know.
MS. GAFFIGAN: And anything that would because the
groundwater flows through froa the landfill through
Shieldalloy, we would've seen that- cosing through the site. We
really didn't see anything unusual.
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you.
MS. GAFFIGAN: Aa for the health assessment, I'll give
the the Health Departaent a call and tell thea that, you
know, there's still a lot of concerns, and either I or someone
-------
1
10
II
12
13
14
15
IB
17
18
IB
30
21
22
23
24
25
52
fros the Health Department will gat back to you about what
they've-done, what thay ahould ba, or what thay can do.
MS. LANGE: Ara there any other questions? Okay. In
closing -- in closing, I want to raitarata that this masting is
part of the ongoing community relations commitment and outreach
that we have in this program. Ne have a very strong commitment
to two-way communications with you, and if you haven't already
done so, please complete the meeting evaluation form, and sign
the attendance sheet, so we can have you on the mailing list so
you can be updated from time to time on what goes on at the
site.
There is going to be a second public meeting that's going
to be held upon completion of the current remedial
investigation feasibility study that's going on on the site
proper for the soil and the sediments and the surface water.
We're calling that this was for the groundwater portion of the
site this particular meeting. He will, at that time,
present a summary of the results of that study, and and give
you a review of remedial action alternatives for cleanup of
those aedia.
- After the contents ara received during this public comment
period, the Department and EPA will select a remedial
alternative. The final selected remedy will be presented in a
record of decision. This record of decision will be available
Ln the same repositories that all of the other documents chat
-------
1
2
3
4
S
e
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
IS
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
53|
have lad up to this decision are found. One of those
repositories is at the library. The other one is at the town
hall. Just to remind you all, that's where these documents
will be.
An announcement of the decision will be sent to everyone or
the mailing list, and if everything goes according to plan, the
next time you'll hear from us, after receiving notices of the
record of decision, will probably be in the winter, which is
when we expect to have results of the the soil, sediment,
and surface water investigation at the site.
I want to emphasize that question and comments are always
welcome at any time. You can direct your comments to Liz
Mataset at the back. Community Relations Coordinator for. the
site. Her number is 609/984-3081. Donna and X are also
available to answer any questions that you Bight have, and our
phone number is 609/633-1455, and I want to thank everyone for
coming tonight.
-------
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
8
10
H
12
13
14
15
n
i?
18
19
30
21
22
23
24
25
¦ I
I
I certify that tha foregoing is a corract transcript fro*
tha alactronic sound racording of tha proeaadings in tha abova'
antitlad mattar.
DATE
JSJ COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC
BY: JAKES V. BOHEN
AUDIO RECORDER
AOC#432
ay: patricia c. re:
-------
APPENDIX E
EPA LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
GROUND WATER OPERABLE UNIT
Shieldalloy Corporation
Newfield Borough, Gloucester County, New Jersey
-------
SEP-18-1996 15:^9
US EPA ERRD ROOM 737
212 264 7611 P. 02/02
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - REGION II
290 BROADWAY
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10007-1866
SEP 17 1996
Robert C. Shinn., Jr., Commissioner
New Jersey Department cf
Environmental Protection
401 East State Street, CN 402
Trenton, New Jersey 00625-0402
Re: Draft Record of Decision
Shieldalloy Corporation superfund Site
Ground Water Operable Unit
Newfield Borough, Gloucester County* New Jersey
Deat Commissioner Shinn:
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
(EPA) has reviewed the August 1996 draft Record of Decision (ROD)
for the Ground Water Operable Unit of the Shieldalloy Corporation
Superfur.d Site (Site) located in the Borough of Newfield,
Gloucester County, New Jersey.
EPA concurs with the "Modified Ground Water Restoration"
remedy presented in the ROD. EPA'5 concurrence is based upon the
determination that the remedy.will provide for protection of
human health and the environment through the upgrade of an
existing ground water extraction and treatment system. The
ground water extraction and treatment system will provide for the
capture and treatment of contaminated ground water attributable
to the Site, and will satisfy the applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements of federal and state environmental
statutes.
Sincerely
Jeanne/M.&tx /
Regional ^Tdminiacrator
Printed on Recycled Paper
TOTAL P. 02
-------
APPENDIX F
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
GROUND WATER OPERABLE UNIT
Shieldalloy Corporation
Newfield Borough, Gloucester County, New Jersey
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
SHIELDALLOY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION
GROUND HATER OPERABLE UNIT
XeMdial Invrnttlgatlon
DATE
DOCUMENT 1
8/31/88
Historical VOC Usage at the SMC Newfield, NJ Facility |
1/89
Remedial Investigation Work Plan |
9/6/89
Letter NJDEP to SMCt comments on 1/89 document |
10/5/89
Letter SMC to NJDEPt response to 9/6/89 letter
10/31/89
Letter NJDEP to SMCi response to 9/6/89 letter 1
12/7/89
Letter SMC to NJDEPt modified list of potential contaminants |
of concern |
12/7/89
Letter SMC to NJDEPt VOC usage letter 1
12/89
Revised Remedial Investigation Work Plan
5/21/90
Letter NJDEP to SMC: comments on 12/89 document
6/12/90
Letter NJDEP to SMCt summary of meeting discussing the 12/89
document and the 5/21/90 letter
7/6/90
Revision 1 Remedial Investigation Work Plan
7/20/90
field and Laboratory QA/QC Plan
9/21/90
Letter NJDEP to SMCt conditional approval of 7/6/90 and
7/20/90 documents
10/19/90
Revision 2 Remedial Investigation Work Plan
11/15/90
Letter NJDEP to SMCt field changes to to Remedial Invest-
igation Work Plan
2/13/91
Letter NJDEP to SMCi hexavalent chromium re-analysis
3/4/91
Letter SMC to NJDEPt response to 2/13/91 letter I
4/25/91
Letter SMC to NJDEPt Second Ground Water Sampling Event Work |
Plan - |
7/91
Draft Pinal Remedial Investigation Report
3/11/92
Letter NJDEP to SMCt comments on 7/91 document 1
I 4/20/92
Letter SMC to NJDEPt response to 3/11/92 letter and |
revisions to 7/91 document
1 4/30/92
Letter TRC to NJDEPt additional infroamtion in response to
3/11/92 letter
8/17/92
Letter NJDEP to SMCt conditional approval of the ground
water portion of the Remedial Investigation Report
10/1/92
Letter SMC to NJDEPt response to 8/17/92 letter
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
SHIELDALLOY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION
GROUND WATER OPERABLE UNIT
Focummd Tmaalbillty Study
| DATS
DOCUMENT
4/29/92
Feasibility Study Work Plan
8/17/92
Letter NJDEP to SMCi conditional approval of 4/29/92
document
10/2/92
Revised Feasibility Study Work Plan
12/92
Draft Focused Feasibility Study Report
3/17/93
Letter NJDEP to SMCt comments on 12/92 document
4/27/93
Letter NJDEP to SMCt additional comments on 12/92 document
4/27/93
Letter NJDEP to SMCi format of revised focused feasibility
study report
5/3/93
Revised Draft Focused Feasibility Study Report
6/93
"Final" Focused Feasibility Study Report
8/31/93
Letter NJDEP to SMCt comments on 6/93 document
2/25/94
Revisions to Final Focused Feasibility Study
8/18/95 .
Letter NJDEP to SMCt approval of 6/93 and 2/25/94 documents
12/94
Cultural Resource Reconnaissance, Addendum to Final Focused
Feasibility Study Report
7/26/95
Letter NJDEP to SMCt comments on the 12/94 document
Ground Vater Monitoring
DATE
1989-1995 I Monthly ground wafr monitoring reports
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
SHIELDALLOY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION
GROUND WATER OPERABLE UNIT
Jiisk Assessment
(Human Health and Environmental)
I DATS
DOCUMENT
B
4/92
"Final Report" Risk Assessment
8/17/92
Letter from NJDEP to SMCi recalculate risk, for chromium based
upon alkaline digestion data
9/9/92
Letter from SMC to NJDEPi extension request for submittal of
risk assessment addendum
9/23/92
Letter from NJDEP to SMC: granting extension to 10/1/92
9/30/92
Draft Addendum to Risk Assessment Report
11/15/93
Letter from NJDEP to SMCi comments on 4/92 and 9/30/92
documents
2/16/94
Letter SMC to NJDEPt response to 11/15/93 letter
3/8/95
Letter NJDEP to SMCi response to 2/16/94 letter
3/22/94
Letter SMC to NJDEP: response to 3/8/94 letter
4/15/94
Letter NJDEP to SMCt response to 3/22/94 letter 1
4/94
Revised Draft Environmental Evaluation Report 1
4/94
Revised Pinal Human Health Risk Assessment 1
6/94
Environmental Evaluation Addendum
8/16/95
Letter NJDEP to SMCt comments on 4/94 Revised Final Human
Health Risk Assessment
B/95
Final Human Health Risk Assessment |
10/24/95
Letter NJDEP to SMCt approval of 8/95 Final Human Health Risk
Assessment
2/14/95
Letter SMC to DSEPAi Environmental^Evaluation and Feasibility
Study Approach
3/20/96
Letter NJDEP to 8MCt response to 2/14/96 letter, comments on
4/94 and 6/94 Environmental Evaluation documents and
requirement to conduct a environmental risk assessment
-------
FIGURES
GROUND WATER OPERABLE UNIT
Shieldalloy Corporation
Newfield Borough, Gloucester County, New Jersey
-------
~
JERSET
43
LOCATION
£
I
J.
Vinekrid
2000 FT
SCALE
FROM NEWFIELD, NJ 7 1/2' U9QS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP, 1953
PHOTORE VISED 1988
SHIELOALLOY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION
NEWFIELD, NEW JERSEY
Figure 1.
Site Location Map
-------
Local Site Setting
SMC plant
aw
V\\ \
* \
f\\ \
- s
WEYMOUTH \ ROAD
| PROPERTY/1
1 / I
400 FT
to
c
-t
<0
ro
-------
Major Site Features
CO
c
CD
CJ
FORMER DEGREASING UNIT
FENCE LINE
LAGOON
MAJOR BUILDING
BY-PRODUCT STORAGE AREA
Ox
OUTFALL
#001
OUTFALL
"4%
Weymouth Rd
400 FT
-------
Well Restriction Area
SHIELDALLOY
Wsat Arbor Av».
WELL
RESTRICTION
AREA
-------
Existing Extraction,
Treatment and Discharge Plan
(Q
C
CD
U1
~ EXISTING EXTRACTION WELL
OUTFALL
#001
Or
r-
500
SCALE FEET
I TREATMENT
\\ SYSTEM
i\ vBUILDING
Ql
\
w«
r mouth
Av*
-------
Extent of TCE Plume -
Shallow Aquifer, April 1995
«IT
Extent of TCE Plume -
Deep Aquifer, April 1995
Avtagt Pumping Rata « 400 gpm
1 ppb
r*-»J J
* LJ
oo
Figure 6.
------- |