&ERA
United States
Environmental Protection 1200PennsylvaniaAvenue, N.W
Agency V\&shington, DC20460 November 2009
Office of Solid V\&ste and Emergency Ftesponse
Support Document for the
Revised National Priorities List
Final Rule -
Peck Iron and Metal
Guam
Trust Territories
American Samoa
Northern Mariana Islands
-------
Support Document for the
Revised National Priorities List
Final Rule
Peck Iron and Metal
November 2009
Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Peck Iron and Metal NPL Listing Support Document
November 2009
Table of Contents
Executive Summary iii
Introduction iv
Background of the NPL iv
Development of the NPL v
Hazard Ranking System v
Other Mechanisms for Listing vi
Organization of this Document vii
Glossary vii
1.0 List of Commenters and Correspondence 1
2.0 Support for Listing 1
3.0 Adverse Comments 2
4.0 Conclusion 13
li
-------
Peck Iron and Metal NPL Listing Support Document
November 2009
Executive Summary
Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the EPA prepare a list of national
priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. An original National Priorities List (NPL) was promulgated
on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). CERCLA requires that EPA update the list at least annually.
This document provides responses to public comments received on the Peck Iron and Metal site, proposed
on April 9, 2009 (74 FR 16162). This site is being added to the NPL based on an evaluation under EPA's
Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in a final rule published in the Federal Register in November 2009.
in
-------
Peck Iron and Metal NPL Listing Support Document
November 2009
Introduction
This document explains the rationale for adding the Peck Iron and Metal site in City of Portsmouth,
Virginia, to the National Priorities List (NPL) of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and also provides the
responses to public comments received on this site. The EPA proposed this site on April 9, 2009 (74 FR
16162). This site is being added to the NPL based on an evaluation under the Hazard Ranking System
(HRS) in a final rule published in the Federal Register in November 2009.
Background of the NPL
In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601 etseq. in response to the dangers of uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA), Public Law No. 99-499, stat., 1613 el seq. To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the
revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, on
July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA Section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR
42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP, further revised by EPA on September 16, 1985 (50 FR 37624) and
November 20, 1985 (50 FR 47912), sets forth guidelines and procedures needed to respond under
CERCLA to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. On
March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666), EPA further revised the NCP in response to SARA.
Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the NCP include
criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the
United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, take
into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal
action.
Removal action involves cleanup or other actions that are taken in response to emergency conditions or
on a short-term or temporary basis (CERCLA Section 101). Remedial action is generally long-term in
nature and involves response actions that are consistent with a permanent remedy for a release (CERCLA
Section 101). Criteria for placing sites on the NPL, which makes them eligible for remedial actions
financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA, were included in the HRS. EPA promulgated the
HRS as Appendix A of the NCP (47 FR 31219, July 16, 1982). On December 14, 1990 (56 FR 51532),
EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS in response to SARA, and established the effective date for the
HRS revisions as March 15, 1991.
Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended, requires that the statutory criteria provided by the HRS be
used to prepare a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is Appendix B of
the NCP, is the NPL.
An original NPL of 406 sites was promulgated on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). At that time, an
HRS score of 28.5 was established as the cutoff for listing because it yielded an initial NPL of at least 400
sites, as suggested by CERCLA. The NPL has been expanded several times since then, most recently on
September 23, 2009 (74 FR 48412). The Agency also has published a number of proposed rulemakings
to add sites to the NPL. The most recent proposal was on September 23, 2009 (74 FR 48412).
IV
-------
Peck Iron and Metal NPL Listing Support Document
November 2009
Development of the NPL
The primary purpose of the NPL is stated in the legislative history of CERCLA (Report of the Committee
on Environment and Public Works, Senate Report No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 [1980]).
The priority list serves primarily informational purposes, identifying for the States and
the public those facilities and sites or other releases which appear to warrant remedial
actions. Inclusion of a facility or site on the list does not in itself reflect a judgment of the
activities of its owner or operator, it does not require those persons to undertake any
action, nor does it assign liability to any person. Subsequent government actions will be
necessary in order to do so, and these actions will be attended by all appropriate
procedural safeguards.
The NPL, therefore, is primarily an informational and management tool. The identification of a site for
the NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to
assess the nature and extent of the human health and environmental risks associated with the site and to
determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. The NPL also serves
to notify the public of sites EPA believes warrant further investigation. Finally, listing a site may, to the
extent potentially responsible parties are identifiable at the time of listing, serve as notice to such parties
that the Agency may initiate CERCLA-financed remedial action.
CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(B) directs EPA to list priority sites among the known releases or threatened
release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants, and Section 105(a)(8)(A) directs EPA to
consider certain enumerated and other appropriate factors in doing so. Thus, as a matter of policy, EPA
has the discretion not to use CERCLA to respond to certain types of releases. Where other authorities
exist, placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action under CERCLA may not be appropriate.
Therefore, EPA has chosen not to place certain types of sites on the NPL even though CERCLA does not
exclude such action. If, however, the Agency later determines that sites not listed as a matter of policy
are not being properly responded to, the Agency may consider placing them on the NPL.
Hazard Ranking System
The HRS is the principle mechanism EPA uses to place uncontrolled waste sites on the NPL. It is a
numerically based screening system that uses information from initial, limited investigations ~ the
preliminary assessment and site inspection ~ to assess the relative potential of sites to pose a threat to
human health or the environment. HRS scores, however, do not determine the sequence in which EPA
funds remedial response actions, because the information collected to develop HRS scores is not
sufficient in itself to determine either the extent of contamination or the appropriate response for a
particular site. Moreover, the sites with the highest scores do not necessarily come to the Agency's
attention first, so that addressing sites strictly on the basis of ranking would in some cases require
stopping work at sites where it was already underway. Thus, EPA relies on further, more detailed studies
in the remedial investigation/feasibility study that typically follows listing.
The HRS uses a structured value analysis approach to scoring sites. This approach assigns numerical
values to factors that relate to or indicate risk, based on conditions at the site. The factors are grouped
into three categories. Each category has a maximum value. The categories are:
• likelihood that a site has released or has the potential to release hazardous substances into the
environment;
v
-------
Peck Iron and Metal NPL Listing Support Document
November 2009
• characteristics of the waste (toxicity and waste quantity); and
• people or sensitive environments (targets) affected by the release.
Under the HRS, four pathways can be scored for one or more threats as identified below:
• Ground Water Migration (Sgw)
- drinking water
• Surface Water Migration (Ssw)
The following threats are evaluated for two separate migration components, overland/flood
migration and ground water to surface water.
- drinking water
- human food chain
- sensitive environments
• Soil Exposure (Ss)
- resident population
- nearby population
- sensitive environments
• Air Migration (Sa)
- population
- sensitive environments
After scores are calculated for one or more pathways according to prescribed guidelines, they are
combined using the following root-mean-square equation to determine the overall site score (S), which
ranges from 0 to 100:
If all pathway scores are low, the HRS score is low. However, the HRS score can be relatively high even
if only one pathway score is high. This is an important requirement for HRS scoring because some
extremely dangerous sites pose threats through only one pathway. For example, buried leaking drums of
hazardous substances can contaminate drinking water wells, but ~ if the drums are buried deep enough
and the substances not very volatile ~ not surface water or air.
Other Mechanisms for Listing
There are two mechanisms other than the HRS by which sites can be placed on the NPL. The first of
these mechanisms, authorized by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2), allows each State and Territory to
designate one site as its highest priority regardless of score. The last mechanism, authorized by the NCP
at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows listing a site if it meets the following three requirements:
• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service
has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release;
• EPA determines the site poses a significant threat to public health; and
VI
-------
Peck Iron and Metal NPL Listing Support Document
November 2009
• EPA anticipates it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its
emergency removal authority to respond to the site.
Organization of this Document
The following section contains EPA responses to site-specific public comments received on the proposal
of the Peck Iron and Metal site on April 9, 2009 (74 FR 16162). The site discussion begins with a list of
commenters, followed by a summary of comments, and Agency responses to each comment. A
concluding statement indicates the effect of the comments on the HRS score for the site.
Glossary
The following acronyms and abbreviations are used throughout the text:
Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ARARS Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980, 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601 etseq., also known as Superfund
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CLP EPA Contract Laboratory Program
EOC Extent of Contamination
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
FS Feasibility study
HRS Hazard Ranking System, Appendix A of the NCP
HRS score Overall site score calculated using the Hazard Ranking System; ranges from 0 to
100
MDL Method detection limit
mg/kg microgram per kilogram
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MS/MSD Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R.
Part 300
NPL National Priorities List, Appendix B of the NCP
PCB polychlorinated biphenyls
ppm parts per million
PRP Potentially responsible party
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC Quality assurance/quality control
Vll
-------
Peck Iron and Metal NPL Listing Support Document
November 2009
RI/FS
Remedial investigation/feasibility study
ROD
Record of Decision
SARA
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
TDL
Target distance limit
TSCA
Toxic Substances Control Act
HQ/kg
microgram per kilogram
UAO
Unilateral Administrative Order
VADEQ
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
VDEQ
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
VRP
Voluntary Remediation Program
Vlll
-------
Peck Iron and Metal NPL Listing Support Document November 2009
1.0 List of Commenters and Correspondence
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0066-0003 Correspondence, dated January 9, 2009, from Rick
F. Weeks, Jr., Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality.
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0066-0005 Comment, posted May 12, 2009, from C. Taylor,
Public Commenter.
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0066-0006 Comment, posted May 27, 2009, from Anonymous
Public Commenter.
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0066-0007 Comment, dated June 8, 2009, from Brian L.
Buniva, Counsel, LeClairRyan on behalf of The
Peck Company.
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0066-0008 Comment, dated May 13, 2009, from S. Harris-
Elliot, Public Commenter.
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0066-0009 Comment, dated June 8, 2009, from Brian L.
Buniva, Counsel, LeClairRyan on behalf of The
Peck Companies.
2.0 Support for Listing
Comment: S. Harris-Elliott, C. Taylor and the anonymous commenter all supported listing. One
stated that federal funding is necessary, another stated that EPA should do whatever is necessary to
protect the public, and a third expressed interest in assisting EPA in making the community a safe
place and working with EPA and the community to do so.
Response: The Agency has added the Site to the NPL. Listing the Site makes it eligible for
remedial action funding under CERCLA, and EPA will examine the Site to determine what
response, if any, is appropriate. Actual funding may not necessarily be undertaken in the precise
order of HRS scores, however, and upon more detailed investigation, may not be necessary at all in
some cases. EPA will determine the need for using Superfund monies for remedial activities on a
site-by-site basis, taking into account the NPL ranking, State priorities, further site investigation,
other response alternatives, and other factors as appropriate. Finally, EPA's community
involvement group will coordinate with the commenter that expressed interest in being involved.
1
-------
Peck Iron and Metal NPL Listing Support Document
November 2009
3.0 Adverse Comments
Brian L. Buniva, LeClairRyan, on behalf of The Peck Companies ("Peck"), raised a number of
concerns related to the site, although none affected the final HRS site score of 48.52. EPA
addresses the comments below.
Comment 1: Peck asserted that EPA has not provided any comments on the Extent of
Contamination Report conducted on behalf of Peck, and that the work necessary for the extent of
contamination (EOC) study was performed and the study was performed in a manner consistent
with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). Peck stated that the EOC has been under review by
EPA for more than seven (7) months, and its consultants are waiting for written confirmation as
to whether it meets the requirements of the Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO), or requires
modification. Peck also stated that without any apparent consideration of the EOC study, EPA
now proposes listing the Site on the NPL.
Response: With respect to EPA's consideration of the draft The Extent of Contamination Report,
EPA used much of the data generated for the draft EOC report in the calculation of the HRS
score. In particular, the data was used to outline the extent of the contaminated soil throughout
the property and to document an observed release of contaminants to surface water. Although
EPA used the data from the draft EOC report in the HRS scoring, EPA has not provided
comments on the EOC study. Whether or not EPA has provided those comments is irrelevant to
the HRS site score.
Comment 2: Peck commented that "[i]t appears that EPA is determined to ignore more cost-
effective recommendations for addressing this Site that are presented in the [EOC] Study."
Response: See discussion above in response to comment 1. This comment does not go to, or
affect, the HRS score and is not therefore relevant to this rulemaking. As discussed above, EPA
proposed the site to the NPL based upon its HRS score. In light of its specific purpose, the HRS
does not take into account the merits of various cleanup options when calculating a site score.
Those options are developed and evaluated during the subsequent remedy selection process.
In accordance with Section 300.430 of the NCP, 40 C.F.R. § 300.430, EPA expects that a
remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) will be conducted at the site. Among other
factors such as the overall protection of human health and the environment, long term
effectiveness, and the reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment, EPA will
consider cost in accordance with Section 300.430(e) (9)(iii)(G) and (f)(l)(ii)(D) of the NCP, 40
C.F.R. § 300.430(e) (9)(iii)(G) and (f)(l)(ii)(D).
Comment 3: Peck urged EPA to accept the recommendations for remedial efforts at the Site
presented in the EOC study, and that "EPA apply cleanup standards that are appropriate for
evaluating ground water and soil remedial actions in a manner consistent with the true risks to
human health and the environment."
Response: See discussion above in response to comments 1 and 2. EPA will select appropriate
cleanup standards in accordance with CERCLA, and the NCP after a RI/FS, including human
2
-------
Peck Iron and Metal NPL Listing Support Document
November 2009
health and ecological risk assessments, has been completed by the Agency, when it issues its
selected remedy in a Record of Decision.
Comment 4: Peck stated that it was about to implement the Virginia Voluntary Remediation
Program (VRP) sanctioned soil consolidation and capping remedy before EPA Region III took
certain steps that caused the withdrawal of the Site from the VRP shortly thereafter. Prior to
issuance of the UAO, the VRP determined that consolidating and capping the soils at the Site
was the appropriate remedy and VDEQ had decided to recommend approval of a $1,000,000
loan/grant to Peck for implementation of this remedy. Peck stated that "removal of the Site from
the VRP pursuant to concerns expressed by EPA appears contrary to the spirit if not the letter of
the January 11, 2002 Memorandum of Agreement between EPA Region III and the
Commonwealth of Virginia[.]"
Response: With regard to whether the Site could remain in the VRP, the assertions made by
Peck's counsel do not comport with the facts. Upon becoming aware of the poly chlorinated
biphenyl (PCB) contamination at the Site, EPA and VADEQ conferred and it was determined
that the Virginia state law does not provide VDEQ with the authority to handle PCB cleanups as
part of the VRP or otherwise. As such, EPA's Region III Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
branch worked with both VADEQ and Peck to provide an adequate TSCA sampling plan in
order to work in conjunction with the VRP cleanup. On June 28, 2005, Mr. David Peck, acting
on behalf of the Peck Company, withdrew the self-implementing PCB cleanup plan [Attachment
1], thereby withdrawing the Site from the VRP. Finally, Section IV (E) of the Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between EPA and VADEQ states:
This MOA is solely between EPA and VADEQ for the exclusive benefit of the
working relationship between EPA and VADEQ, and is not intended to be
enforceable by any party in any administrative or judicial forum. Nothing herein
is intended to create any rights, obligations, responsibilities, expectations, or
benefits from any third parties, (emphasis added).
In short, the MOA was entered by EPA and the Virginia state Department of Environmental
Quality (the VADEQ or VDEQ) to foster a "working relationship." As part of that relationship,
VADEQ advised EPA that it could not handle a PCB cleanup under its state authority. EPA then
made good faith efforts to provide TSCA support to Peck on a self-implementing PCB cleanup.
Peck voluntarily and unilaterally withdrew that TSCA PCB Cleanup plan.
VADEQ's January 9, 2009, letter to EPA supporting the proposal of the Site to the NPL only
underscores the fact that VADEQ actually supports the exclusion of the Site from the VRP.
Comment 5: Peck argued that the placement of the Site on the NPL will more than likely
prevent the implementation of any cost-effective remedial action at the Site for several years if
not another decade.
Response: EPA does not agree that proceeding with the listing process will necessarily delay
implementation of a remedial action. Even upon NPL listing, EPA may take any necessary
response actions, including removal actions, necessary to protect human health and the
3
-------
Peck Iron and Metal NPL Listing Support Document
November 2009
environment. The fact that a site is listed on the NPL does not preclude EPA from taking such
actions pending the implementation of a cleanup remedy.
If a potentially responsible party (PRP) wishes to expedite cleanup efforts, the PRP may
undertake the RI/FS and/or remedial design/remedial action stages under EPA supervision and
pursuant to appropriate agreements with governmental authorities (under enforcement authorities
of CERCLA or those of other statutes). The listing process does not encumber or preclude PRPs
from entering into these agreements. The EPA has entered into many such agreements before
and after a site's promulgation to the NPL, and such an alternative is available to the commenter.
Comment 6: Peck commented, "It seems fair to ask what more of substance has been learned
about the Site as a result of the at least $1,000,000 in additional investigatory costs necessitated
by the UAO,"and "[w]ill the remedy selection that is most appropriate for this site be materially
different than that authorized by VDEQ ....?"
Response: See discussion above in responses to comments 1, 2 and 3. These comments are not
relevant to the HRS scoring of the Site or the decision to place the Site on the NPL.
However, the EOC study, though incomplete, has to date provided a more thorough
understanding of site conditions, including by clarifying the magnitude and extent of the
contamination.
Comment 7: Peck provided a summary of the Draft Report Findings and Recommendations, and
included discussions of earlier studies, and soil, sediment and ground water results. In referring
to the findings of the EOC study, Peck asserted that many of the contaminant concentrations
were below regulatory limits and/or Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs). For example:
• Of the 36 sediment samples, only 3 PCB samples exceeded the 59.8 |ig/kg screening
level for sediments in Paradise Creek.
• No PCBs detected in ground water exceeded the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of
0.50 |ig/L
• The dissolved metals detected above screening levels in one or more samples were
arsenic and nickel.
Peck disputed that a "25 ppm PCB soil cleanup standard is either legally required or factually
justified at this Site," and that they were 'Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
("ARARS"), which are required to be considered, but not mandated under CERCLA.' Peck also
disputed the applicable criteria for PCBs in surface water for the site.
Peck further argued that even if the TSCA clean-up standard regulations are mandatory, "in low
occupancy areas PCB contaminated soils may remain at the Site at concentrations > 25 ppm up
to 100 ppm if the site is covered with a cap meeting specified requirements." Peck also argued
that EPA is authorized "to consider any other remediation method and clean up standard for PCB
soils so long as the method will not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment."
4
-------
Peck Iron and Metal NPL Listing Support Document
November 2009
Peck summarized the results of the EOC, saying it believed that there had been minimal
exceedances of drinking water standards, all adjacent properties are on public water supply, and
there appear to be no potential human receptors impacted by site ground water. Peck wrote that
"[a]ll PCB samples are below drinking water standards, which reduce the concern for
bioaccumulation of PCBs in aquatic life." Further, the study concluded that impacts to aquatic
life in the Elizabeth River or in Paradise Creek were not anticipated due to low concentrations of
metals in ground water. The conclusion of the EOC "urge[d] that an appropriate remedy to
prevent leaching of metals and PCBs to groundwater and preventing off-site migration is the
placement of a soil cap over contaminated soils at the site." Peck also stated that "sampling
results (including the most recent results) reported in the [EOC] Study reveal no significant
surface or groundwater impacts leaching from these soils."
Response: See responses to above comments 2 and 3. Peck's comments on the draft EOC report
findings have no effect on the HRS evaluation or the score assigned to the site. While the HRS
evaluation of this site did reflect contaminant concentrations (e.g., PCBs) in defining the site
source and identifying an observed release to surface water, neither of these evaluations were
dependent on the contaminant concentration being above a regulatory limit or an ARAR.
In general, the HRS is not restricted to evaluating contaminant levels above regulatory limits.
On July 16, 1982, when responding to public comments on the proposed (original) HRS (47 FR
31188), and again on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40665), the Agency rejected the idea that
releases within regulatory limits should not be considered under the HRS. As the Agency noted
in 1982:
emission or effluent limits do not necessarily represent levels which cause no
harm to public health or the environment. These limitations are frequently
established on the basis of economic impacts or achievability.
The HRS does, however, consider whether releases are above regulatory limits specifically
identified in the HRS in evaluating target populations, increasing by a factor of 10 the weight
assigned populations exposed to contaminants above the limits. However, at this site, the HRS
score was not based on target populations being exposed to contaminants above regulatory
limits.
The observed release factor and the association of contaminants with sources do not represent the
risk to human health and the environment posed by a site. Instead, the relative risk posed by a
site is approximated by the total HRS score, which incorporates the observed release factors with
other factors such as waste characteristics (including waste quantity, toxicity, and persistence)
and targets. This total HRS score reflects the risk of the site relative only to the other sites that
have been scored. The actual degree of contamination and its effects are more fully determined
during the RI that typically follows listing.
Specifically, the HRS evaluation of the Peck Iron and Metal Site has appropriately documented a
source at this site and associated hazardous substances with it without consideration of
regulatory limits, consistent with the HRS.
5
-------
Peck Iron and Metal NPL Listing Support Document
November 2009
The HRS defines a "source" in section 1.1 as:
[a]ny area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or
placed, plus those soils that have become contaminated from migration of a
hazardous substance. Sources do not include those volumes of air, ground water,
surface water, or surface water sediments that have become contaminated by
migration, except: in the case of either a ground water plume with no identified
source or contaminated surface water sediments with no identified source, the
plume or contaminated sediments may be considered a source.
HRS Section 2.2.2, Identify hazardous substances associated with a source, further states to:
consider those hazardous substances documented in a source (for example, by
sampling, labels, manifests, oral or written statements) to be associated with that
source when evaluating each pathway.
Therefore, the HRS does not require a source to contain a substance(s) above regulatory criteria
to consider the source or the substances associated with it in the HRS evaluation of a site.
At the Peck Iron and Metal site, one source, Source 1, Contaminated Soil, was evaluated as part
of the HRS scoring of the site. The HRS documentation record at proposal states on page 14:
Source 1 is characterized using soil samples collected from the Peck Iron property
during the extent of contamination study conducted in 2007. The soil samples
were collected from a 50-foot by 50-foot grid, as shown in Figure 2-1 of
Reference 40. The soil samples were analyzed for metals (arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and silver) and PCBs. The soil samples were
analyzed for metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and
silver) and PCBs. Metals were analyzed using EPA SW-846 Methods 6010/7471,
and PCBs were analyzed using EPA SW-846 Method 8082. The laboratory
analyses were conducted at a Level IV Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)-
equivalent data quality that included quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
samples such as laboratory control standards, matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates
(MS/MSD), and surrogates (at a minimum).
The QAPP for the sample collection, documentation, and analysis is provided in
Reference 8.
Because Source 1 is made up of contaminated soil, background soil samples were used to show
that the soils came to be contaminated by migration. This was illustrated by documenting that
the levels of PCBs and lead in Source 1 at the site are significantly above background levels.
The HRS documentation record at proposal states on page 15:
6
-------
Peck Iron and Metal NPL Listing Support Document
November 2009
The background soil samples were collected from locations in the northern
portion of the Peck Iron property. Figures illustrating sampling locations and
their corresponding PCB and lead analytical results indicate these northern site
locations were not as impacted by facility operations (Ref. 38; Ref. 40, Figures 4-
1, 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4). [See Page 15 of the HRS documentation record at proposal.]
The HRS documentation record at proposal further states that the sampling locations
contaminated with PCBs and lead are within the area where the majority of facility operations
were conducted (page 15 of the HRS documentation record at proposal). The HRS
documentation record at proposal shows in Table 1 that PCBs were not detected at or above the
method detection limit (MDL) in the background samples but shows in Tables 2 and 3 that PCBs
were detected in Source 1 soil samples above the respective background MDL as well as above
the contaminated soil samples MDL. PCB contamination in soil samples used to associate PCBs
with Source 1 ranged from 41 to 1,100,000 |ig/kg (see pages 18 - 44 of the HRS documentation
record at proposal). In Table 4, the HRS documentation record at proposal shows lead
concentration ranged from 6.6 mg/kg to 140 mg/kg in the soil background samples. The
contaminated soil samples documenting lead in Source 1 ranged from 420 mg/kg to 27,000
mg/kg (see page 46 - 49 of the HRS documentation record at proposal). These data show that
PCBs and lead in Source 1 are above background levels. EPA finds the concentrations of PCBs
and lead, in combination with the other elements of the HRS score, were sufficiently high to
warrant listing.
EPA also used contaminated sediments in the wetlands to establish an observed release by direct
observation to the surface water pathway.
According to HRS Section 2.3, Likelihood of release, an observed release by direct observation
is established by direct observation of the release of a hazardous substance into the media being
evaluated. Regarding the surface water migration pathway, HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1, Observed
release, provides further details in establishing an observed release by direct observation. It
states the following:
• Direct observation:
A material that contains one or more hazardous substance has been seen
entering surface water through migration or is known to have entered
surface water through direct deposition, or
A source area has been flooded at a time that hazardous substances were
present, and one or more hazardous substances were in contact with the
flood waters, or
- When evidence supports the inference of a release of a material that
contains one or more hazardous substances by the site to surface water,
demonstrated adverse effects associated with that release may also be used
to establish an observed release.
The presence of PCBs and lead in the contaminated soils present in the wetland constitutes an
observed release by direct observation from the site into a wetland, which is a surface water
pursuant to HRS Section 4.0.2. HRS Section 4.0.2 provides that eligible surface waters,
7
-------
Peck Iron and Metal NPL Listing Support Document
November 2009
specifically rivers, include "perennially flowing waters from point of origin to the ocean or to
coastal tidal waters, whichever comes first, and wetlands contiguous to these flowing waters."
Since the southern portion of the Peck Iron and Metal Site is a wetland which is contiguous to
Paradise Creek, a perennially flowing water, this wetland is part of an HRS-eligible surface
water body.
Therefore, the source at the site and the observed release by direct observation were both
established consistent with the HRS.
Regarding the pathway data cited by Peck, the surface water pathway was sufficient to achieve
an HRS score for the site above 28.50, the score necessary for placing the site on the NPL.
Therefore, the comments regarding ground water contamination are not relevant to the site score.
Because only the surface water pathway was used to score the site, ground water targets were not
assessed, hence the comments regarding ground water have no effect on the HRS score for the
site.
That residents are on public water does not affect the surface water pathway portion of the site
score. As stated in section 4.1.2.3 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, no drinking
water intakes have been identified in the 15-mile target distance limit (TDL), and so no score
was assigned based upon the population using drinking water in the area.
Regarding Peck's statement that "[a]ll PCB samples are below drinking water standards, which
reduce the concern for bioaccumulation of PCBs in aquatic life," simply because PCB levels are
below a human drinking water standard does not mean they pose no concern. Bioaccumulation
is the process in which contaminants in aquatic life can, over time, increase in concentration
many magnitudes above that found in the ambient environment. These increased levels can then
pose a threat not only to the aquatic life but also to human targets consuming the aquatic life.
Further, the actual degree of contamination and its effects are more fully determined during the
RI that typically follows listing. See response to comment 8 below regarding cleanup criteria.
Comment 8: Peck stated that "we do not believe that a 25 ppm [(parts per million)] soil cleanup
standard is either legally required or factually justified at the Site[,]" and that "the insistence of
such standard by EPA not only turns what was once a $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 project under
the VRP, into a project that could well exceed $20,000,000 after listing it as a NPL site . . . with
no tangible benefit to human health and the environment^ ]" In support of this, Peck argued that
the TSCA regulations under 40 C.F.R. Part 761 are not required by the UAO because they are
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements ("ARARs"), which are required to be
considered, but not mandated under CERCLA Section 9621. Peck also argued that the self-
implementing TSCA cleanup provisions are not binding upon cleanups conducted under other
authorities, including but not limited to actions conducted under Section 104 or 106 of CERCLA
pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Sec. 761.61 (a)( 1 )(ii). Peck argued that the Site qualifies as a low
occupancy area as defined at 40 C.F.R. § 761.3.
Response: See discussion above in responses to comments 1, 2 and 3. Consideration of the
appropriate cleanup standards will occur during the RI/FS after listing. The requirements of the
8
-------
Peck Iron and Metal NPL Listing Support Document
November 2009
UAO are not relevant to the HRS score. The final UAO did not address cleanup standards or the
status of any specific ARARs, but rather, required study of conditions at the Site. Further, the
decision to list the site on the NPL is based upon the HRS score, and therefore, the contents of
the UAO are not relevant to this action. Also, whether 40 CFR § 761.61 is used at a later stage
in the remedy selection process as an ARAR when determining cleanup levels at this site is not
relevant to the HRS score or the decision to include this site on the NPL.
Comment 9: Pursuant to Section 121 of CERCLA, the remedy selection chosen by EPA must
be cost-effective and must address both the short and long term costs of such removal or
remedial actions.
Response: Section 121 of CERCLA applies to remedial actions, not removals. As such, these
considerations will be relevant to remedy selection in the Record of Decision.
Comment 10: Peck also cited the Neal's Landfill Record of Decision (ROD) amendment to
support the proposition that EPA has considerable discretion in fashioning a remedy for a PCB
site under CERCLA.
Response: As the commenter itself recognizes, each site is unique, and what was determined to
be appropriate at Neal's Landfill may or may not be appropriate at this site. Further study is
necessary before any decisions are made as to remedy selection, which occurs at a later stage of
the Superfund process.
Comment 11: Peck cited to Appendix H of the Draft EOC Report, which it stated provides cost
estimates for various remedies. Peck concluded that "[t]he cost differential for the remedies,
which our consultants believe will be equally protective of human health and the environment in
this historically heavy industrial area, is simply astounding."
Response: See discussion above in responses to comments 1, 2 and 3. Consideration of the
appropriate cleanup standards will occur during the RI/FS. As stated in the response to comment
number 2, EPA will consider cost in accordance with 300.430(e) (9)(iii)(G) and (f)(l)(ii)(D).
Comment 12: Peck stated that it "has reason to believe that EPA's decision to propose that this
Site be listed on the NPL is due, in part, from the misapplication of an erroneous PCB standard
to groundwater data obtained at the Site in the summer of 2008." Peck also stated that "the
groundwater results at this Site demonstrate that the PCB concentration in groundwater at the
Site is far below the appropriate and applicable legal standard established by EPA of 0.50 ug/L "
Response: See discussion above in responses to comments 1, 2 and 3. The ground water
pathway was not scored in the HRS evaluation, and therefore these comments have no effect on
the site score, nor on the decision to list the Site on the NPL.
In any case, a comparison of the appropriate water quality criteria with ground water data is
typically the first step utilized in ecological risk assessment to evaluate ground water data when
the ground water may discharge to surface water. It is a screening step to determine if 1) the
9
-------
Peck Iron and Metal NPL Listing Support Document
November 2009
potential for ecological risk exists if ground water discharges to surface water, and, 2) if further
investigation is warranted. An ecological risk assessment will be performed during the RI/FS.
Comment 13: According to the EOC, total PCB concentrations (addition of all PCB homologues
detected in each well) were detected in three wells but at concentrations less than the 0.50 |ig/L
MCL.
Response: The site was scored based on surface water, such that PCB concentrations in ground
water are not relevant. See discussion above in responses to comments 1, 2 and 3.
Consideration of the appropriate cleanup standards will occur during the RI/FS.
Comment 14: Peck asserted that utilization of the 0.000064 |ig/L surface water criterion for
human consumption of fish is inappropriate. Peck stated that a fish consumption advisory is in
place due to the "presence of PCBs in the James and its tributaries," and that the "imposition of
the virtually unmeasurable standard applied to this Site will have no impact lifting a health
advisory that has been in effect for decades."
Response: This 0.000064 |ig/L surface water value was not used in the HRS scoring. The site
was scored based upon the identification of contaminated soils in wetlands on the site property
and adjacent to Paradise Creek. Although EPA did identify potential human food chain
population in the area (crab pots were noted in the area adjacent to the contaminated wetlands),
EPA could not document the amount of fish and crabs harvested from this area and therefore
assigned a value of "'0" to the human food chain population value. Therefore, no surface water
criterion for human consumption of fish was considered in the HRS score. Even without
consideration of this criterion, the site still scores high enough to warrant its placement on the
NPL.
The RI/FS will address the risks to both humans and the environment by performing human
health and ecological risk assessments, and appropriate criteria will be used for these
assessments. The presence of the fish advisory does not change the Site score. In the HRS
documentation record at proposal, EPA noted the presence of the fish advisory in section 4.1.3.3.
EPA has evidence that, despite fish consumption advisories, individuals utilize the Elizabeth
River and Paradise Creek for subsistence fishing activities.
Comment 15: Peck stated that despite the 2001 Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and
VDEQ moving toward implementation of an approved remedy, this Site has been singled out by
EPA for listing.
Response: As explained above in response to comment 4, this site is not eligible for the VRP
program and the Commonwealth of Virginia supported the listing of the site on the NPL. EPA
has decided to use the broad comprehensive authority of CERCLA to comprehensively address
the threat posed by all releases from this site to human health and the environment.
Comment 16: Peck commented that it is uncertain if sediment sample exceeding the screening
levels for metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, nickel, lead, mercury and silver) are due to
10
-------
Peck Iron and Metal NPL Listing Support Document
November 2009
runoff from the site, are from heavy industrial sources adjacent to these tidal waters, or are
typical background soil concentrations for the area.
Response: The HRS score for the site was based on the establishment of an observed release by
direct observation of PCBs and lead into the wetlands at the site. This direct observation
establishes that the PCBs and the lead came to be located in the wetland due to the hazardous
substances coming from the Peck site.
According to HRS Section 2.3, Likelihood of release, an observed release by direct observation
is established by direct observation of the release of a hazardous substance into the media being
evaluated. With regard to the surface water migration pathway, HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1,
Observed release, provides further details in establishing an observed release by direct
observation. It states the following:
• Direct observation:
A material that contains one or more hazardous substances has been seen
entering surface water through migration or is known to have entered
surface water through direct deposition, or
A source area has been flooded at a time that hazardous substances were
present, and one or more hazardous substances were in contact with the
flood waters, or
- When evidence supports the inference of a release of a material that
contains one or more hazardous substances by the site to surface water,
demonstrated adverse effects associated with that release may also be used
to establish an observed release.
At the Peck Iron and Metal site, the first criterion listed for the demonstration of an observed
release by direct observation in HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1 to surface water was met. Under the
direction of the HRS, no separate attribution is required when an observed release by direct
observation is documented. While no formal attribution is required, the HRS documentation
record at proposal, on pages 56 through 61, explains that at least some of the contamination in
the wetlands is coming from the Peck Iron and Metal site.
The HRS documentation record at proposal states that the substances in the wetlands are
associated with the Peck operations and that the source is not contained to prevent contaminant
migration:
The contaminated soil within Source 1 is attributed to the former operations at
Peck Iron. In response to a request for information issued by EPA pursuant to
Section 104(e) of CERCLA, Peck Company, Inc., acknowledged that from 1945
to approximately 1990 the business conducted at the facility was the purchase,
processing, storage, and shipping of metal scrap from various military bases;
other federal, state, and local government agencies; and local businesses. Scrap
metal handled at the facility included damaged and obsolete equipment,
attachments, parts, and other miscellaneous materials, including scrapped naval
vessels. Peck Company, Inc., disclosed that some of these scrap materials
11
-------
Peck Iron and Metal NPL Listing Support Document
November 2009
contained cadmium (automobile parts); PCBs (insulated wire, gaskets, fluorescent
lights and transformer oils); and lead (scrapped bridge sections and automobile
batteries) (Ref. 4, p. 3; Ref. 32, p. 5). Therefore, the PCB and lead contamination
identified in Source 1 is attributed to operations at Peck Iron and not from
adjacent properties or other sources [see Page 56 of the HRS documentation
record at proposal].
The contamination in Source 1 is expected to migrate to wetlands on the
southwestern border of the Peck Iron property adjacent to Paradise Creek because
of the slight topographic gradient across the Peck Iron property and Source 1
towards the wetlands (Ref. 53; Ref. 67). Additionally, the areas of Source 1 are
not contained and are subject to flooding. Source 1 is located in the flood plain of
Paradise Creek and is subject to extensive flooding and erosion during weather
events such as tropical storms and hurricanes. Source 1 is within a 100-year flood
plain (Ref. 6, pp. 3, 4 and Appendix B; Ref. 45; Ref. 68) [see page 56 of the HRS
documentation record at proposal].
In addition, while Peck questioned whether the contamination [in the wetland sediments] is
attributable solely to its operations, Peck does not refute the documentation of PCBs and lead in
site soils above background levels, nor EPA's finding that these PCBs and lead contaminated
soils extend into an intertidal emergent wetland which is part of Source 1 and located along the
Paradise Creek shoreline. As such, the hazardous substances (PCBs and lead) associated with
sampling locations within Source 1 and sampling locations within the intertidal emergent
wetland, a surface water body, at the site, document an observed release by direct observation.
Page 52 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states:
The soil contamination in Source 1 extends into an intertidal emergent wetland, as
shown in References 38, 41, and 67. The wetland is contiguous to Paradise
Creek. Therefore, an observed release to the wetland and to Paradise Creek can
be documented by direct observation. Soil sampling locations within the wetland
include grid cells AA2 through AA5; BB4; BB5; DD5; DD6; EE3; EE4; EE5;
GG-8; GG9; GG10; GG12; HH10; HH11; HH12; andHH13 (Ref. 38; Ref. 41;
Ref. 67). Concentrations of PCBs and lead detected in soil samples collected from
the wetland portion of Source 1 are summarized in Table 8.
The HRS documentation record at proposal continues by listing in Table 8 all the sampling
locations documenting PCBs and lead in the portions of Source 1 that are within the intertidal
emergent wetland, a surface water body1 at the site. PCBs contamination in the wetland ranged
from 66 |ig/kg to 16,000 |ig/kg, and lead contamination ranged from 430 |ig/kg to 6,500 |ig/kg.
The sampling locations are depicted Reference 38 and 41 and the wetland location is depicted in
References 38 and 67 of the HRS documentation record at proposal.
1 HRS Section 4.0.2, Surface water categories, includes wetlands contiguous to perennial flowing waters as an
eligible surface water. See HRS section 4.0.2 for more discussion on HRS eligible surface water categories.
12
-------
Peck Iron and Metal NPL Listing Support Document
November 2009
4.0 Conclusion
The original HRS score for this site was 48.52. Based on the above responses to public
comments, the score remains unchanged. The final scores for the Peck Iron and Metal site are:
Ground Water:
Surface Water:
Soil Exposure:
Air Pathway:
HRS Score:
Not Scored
97.05
Not Scored
Not Scored
48.52
13
------- |