record of decision. - superfund records collections · the following chronology summarizes events...
TRANSCRIPT
83052
RECORD OF DECISIONRemedial Alternative Selection
RECORD OF DECISION DECLARATION
Site: Diamond Shamrock Superfund SiteRemedial Alternative Selection for the PropertiesLocated at 80 and 120 Lister Avenue, City of Newark,Essex County, New Jersey
Documents Reviewed or Relied Upon
I am basing my decision concerning the appropriate remedialalternative for the Diamond Shamrock Superfund Site (alsoknown as the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site) primarily on thefollowing documents:
1. 80 Lister Avenue Site Evaluation Report* (3 Volumes),February 1985;
2. 120 Lister Avenue Site Evaluation Report* (2 Volumes),May 1985;
3. 80 and 120 Lister Avenue Site Evaluation Report Addendum*(1 Volume), February 1986;
4. 80 Lister Avenue Quality Assurance Data Review (By NUSCorporation under contract to the New Jersey Departmentof Environmental Protection (NJDEP);
5. 80 Lister Avenue Feasibility Study*, October 1985;
6. 80 Lister Avenue Feasibility Study - Response to NJDEPComments*, June 1986;
7. 80 Lister Avenue Feasibility Study - Response to EPAComments*, June 1986;
8. Proposed Interim Remedial Action Plan - Diamond ShamrockSuperfund Site, EPA - Region II, July 1987;
9. Public comments;
10. Respons iveness Summary.
A substantial number of additional documents are also includedas part of the administrative record, which serves as the basisof this Record of Decision (ROD).
* Documents prepared by contractors for Diamond ShamrockChemicals Company.
11
My decision is also based on a number of additional documentswhich are published and generally available. These documentsinclude the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liabil i ty Act of 1980, 42 U.S .C. Sections 9601 et seq., asamended by the Superfund Amendments and ReauthorizatTon Act of1986; the National Oil and Hazardous Substances PollutionContingency Plan, 40 C .F .R . Part 300, and other documents citedelsewhere in this ROD.
Description of the Selected Remedial Alternative
The components of the selected remedial alternative aredescribed below:
1. Construct a slurry wall encircling the site tying intothe silt layer underlying the site.
2. Construct a flood wall and appurtenances to protect thesite from the 100 year flood. Such flood wall shall conformto the specifications and guidances of the U.S. Army Corps *of Engineers and the NJDEP and shall include as a design -:consideration the impact of the proposed Passaic Riverflood control project. -|
3. Disassemble and decontaminate all non-porous permanentstructures and materials to the maximum extent practicablefor off-site reuse, recycling or disposal.
4. Transport all drums containing hazardous substances but containingless than 1 ppb of TCDD off-site for treatment or disposal.
5. Demolish all remaining structures on-site and secure all ,materials contaminated above 1 ppb of TCDD on-site. Securedtmaterials shall be segregated to the maximum extent practi-cable to a f fo rd access to and facil i tate removal of the more"highly contaminated materials, should such removal be selectedas a remedy at a later date. ^
6. Stabilize and immobilize the contents of the remaining drumsof dioxin contaminated materials.
7. Locate and plug inactive underground conduits and rerouteactive systems.
8. H a u l , empty, spread and compact the contaminated materialspresently stored at 120 Lister Avenue; decontaminate theshipping containers for off -s i te reuse, recycling or disposal.
9. Insta l l , operate, and main ta in a ground water withdrawalsystem designed to main ta in a hydraulic gradient preventingthe migration of ground water from the volume containedw i t h i n the slurry wall .
10. Install , operate, and ma in t a in a treatment system for groundwater and other aqueous liquids.
830520002
iii
11. Construct a surf icial cap consisting of suitable materialsdesigned to meet the requirements of the Resource Conserva-tion and Recovery Act.
12. Implement suitable monitoring, contingency, operation andmaintenance, and site security plans to ensure the protec-tion of human health and the environment during and af terthe installation of the selected alternative.
13. On-site placement and capping of all sludge generated fromthe wastewater treatment processes until such time that analternative method of sludge management is approved.
14. Design, construct and operate the remedy to attain the clean-up standards listed in Tables III, V, VII of Section VI I Iof this Record of Decision.
15. Perform a Feasibility Study every 24 months following theinstallation of the selected interim remedy to develop,screen and assess remedial alternatives and to assess theperformance of the selected remedy.
Consistent with Section 121(c) of CERCLA, which requires theperiodic reevaluation of containment remedies, the proposed plancalls for the reevaluation of the remedy every two years. Inview of the periodic reevaluation process, EPA and NJDEP considerthe selected remedial alternative to be an interim remedy.
830520003
iv
Declaration
Consistent wi th the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liabil i ty Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amendedby the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986(SARA) , and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances PollutionContingency Plan ( N C P ) , 40 C.F.R. Part 300, I have determinedthat the remedial alternative selected for the Diamond ShamrockSuperfund Site is cost-effective, and provides adequate protec-tion of public health and welfare and the environment.
I have also determined that the action being taken is consistentwith Section 121 of SARA and is appropriate when balancedagainst the avai labi l i ty of Trust Fund monies for use at othersites.
The State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection -has been consulted and concurs with the selected remedialalternative. *
_____^__^^_rDate "Regional Admih'istrat^L rir^JL-J (i^i t( A.\\
830520004
CONFORMED COPY
RECORD OF DECISION CONTENTS
Record of Decision Declaration
Contents
Record of Decision Summary
I. Background Chronology
II. Scope of this Record of Decision
III. Site Location and Description
IV. Remedial Investigation Findings
V. Risks Presented by the Site
VI. The Criteria for Remedy Selection
VII. Description and Evaluation of RemedialAlternatives
VIII. Cleanup Standards
IX. Description of the Selected Alternative
X. Enforcement
XI. Community Relations
XII. Glossary of Terms and Acronyms
Appendix A. Responsiveness Summary
Appendix B. Site Evaluation Analytical Results
Figures
1. Site Location Map
2. Site Vicinity Map
3. Site Plat Plan .
4. Site Configuration
5. Conceptual Site Plan - Alternatives 2 & 4
PAGE NUMBERi
1
1
2
3
13
22
24
26
48
77
80
80
81
4
5
6
7
29
830520005
vi
RECORD OF DECISION CONTENTS cont.
6. Conceptual Cross Section - Alternative 2
7. Conceptual Site Plan - Alternative 3
8. Conceptual Cross Section - Alternative 3
9. Conceptual Cross Section - Alternative 4
10. Conceptual Site Plan - Alternative 5
11. Conceptual Cross Section - Alternative 5
Tables
I. Remedial Alternatives
II. Cost Summary of Alternatives
III. Federal ARARs, That Will Be AttainedBy The Selected Alternative
IV. Other Federal ARARs
V. State ARARs That Will BeAttained By The Selected Alternative
VI. State ARARs That Will Not Be AttainedBy The Selected Alternative
VII. Other Cleanup Standards
PAGE NUMBER
30
33
34
36
40
41
27
28
49
55
60
72
74
830520006
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
I. Background Chronology Leading to this Record of Decision
The following chronology summarizes events leading to this Record ofDecision:
3/51 - The Diamond Alkali Company (subsequently known as the DiamondShamrock Chemicals Company) purchased an existing chemicalsmanufacturing facility at 80 Lister Avenue, Newark, NJ. Thecompany operated the facility from 1951 to 1969 manufacturing2,4,5-trichlorophenol; 2,4,5-T; 2,4-D; and other chemicalsand pesticides. From 1969 until 1977 when manufacturingactivities were halted, the facility was operated by othercompanies.
5/83 - As a result of EPA's National Dioxin Strategy, which targeted^facilities which produced 2,4,5-trlchlorophenol and/or itspesticide derivatives for sampling, the site was sampled fordioxin (i.e., 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin) and dioxitiwas found in the samples. Subsequently dioxin and otherhazardous substances were also found at other properties fathe area and in biota and sediment samples from the PassaicRiver, which borders the site. To address the off-sitecontamination, EPA, under the removal authority of CERCLA,and the NJDEP initiated a number of clean-up activities whichincluded the vacuuming, of contaminated streets and theexcavation of contaminated soil.
9/83 - The site was proposed for the Superfund National PrioritiesList.
3/84 - The NJDEP issued an Administrative Consent Order (ACO 1) :which required Diamond Shamrock to perform a Site Evaluationand Feasibility Study for 80 Lister Avenue as well as otherresponse actions for the 80 Lister Avenue property.
9/84 - The site was added to the National Priorities List.
12/84 - The NJDEP issued a second Administrative Consent Order (ACOII) to Diamond Shamrock requiring Diamond Shamrock tocomplete the aforementioned cleanup actions which had beenInitiated by EPA, under CERCLA removal authority, and NJDEPfor the t>ff-site properties. This Order also requiredDiamond Shamrock to perform a Site Evaluation for 120 ListerAvenue and expanded the scope of the Feasibility Study toinclude the hazardous substances stored at 120 ListerAvenue. This Feasibility Study addresses the 120 and 80Lister Avenue sites as a source control operable unit.Additional areas of concern Include off-site studies of thePassaic River and bedrock aquifer. These will result inadditional operable units at some time in the future.
1/85 - EPA and Diamond Shamrock signed a voluntary costreimbursement agreement which resulted in the recovery ofnearly 2 million dollars which EPA had spent for the site.
830520007
f
- 2 -
2/85 - Diamond Shamrock submitted a three volume SiteEvaluation Report for 80 Lister Avenue. (Using Superfundterminology, this would be a Remedial Investigation Report).The report quantified the extent of hazardous substancecontamination in soils, wastes, ground water, and structuresat the site.
5/85 - Diamond Shamrock submitted a two volume Site EvaluationReport for 120 Lister Avenue, which is adjacent to the formerDiamond Alkali plant and is currently used to store thedioxin wastes resulting from the off-site removal actions.
10/85 - NJDEP released a report entitled "A Study of Dioxin inAquatic Animals and Sediments" which presented data showingdioxin contamination of fish and crustaceans collected in thevicinity of the site.
12/85 - Diamond Shamrock submitted the Feasibility Study (FS) for 80120 Lister Avenue. ^
#t2/86 - Diamond Shamrock Submitted an addendum to the Site '
Evaluation Reports addressing NJDEP comments.
2/86 - A Public Meeting on FS was held on 2/86. ^
3/86 - Diamond Shamrock submitted a two volume report entitled"Passaic River Sediment Study", which further defined theextent of the dioxin contamination of the Passaic Riversediments.
4/86 - NJDEP and EPA comments on the Feasibility Study weretransmitted to Diamond Shamrock.
6/86 - Diamond Shamrock responded to the NJDEP and EPA comments ;on the Feasibility Study. ^
7/87 - The Proposed Interim Remedial Action Plan (PIRAP) explaining ;the Remedial Alternative preferred by NJDEP and EPA was madepublic.
8/87 - A Public Meeting on the PIRAP was held.
II. Scope of this Record of Decision
As indicated in the .background chronology provided above, the SiteEvaluations and Feasibility Study, which are a chief basis for this Recordof Decision, are for the properties at 80 and 120 Lister Avenue. Otherproperties that were contaminated by releases of hazardous substances fromthe 80 Lister Avenue property are not addressed by the Feasibility Study orby this Record of Decision. The cleanup of these other properties is beingaddressed separately from this Record of Decision, as outlined in thebackground chronology above (12/84) and will be addressed as subsequentoperable units.
In addition, the existing contamination of the Passaic River is beingaddressed by a separate study. The cleanup of the River sediments is notaddressed in this Record of Decision. While the remedy selected by this
830520008
- 3 -
Record of Decision will have a beneficial effect on the Passaic River,ground water and other properties by abating releases from 80 and 120 ListerAvenue, it is not intended to clean up the existing contamination of theRiver or other properties. Other actions have been and will be taken by EPAand NJDEP to address off-site problems resulting from hazardous substancesreleased from 80 Lister Avenue.
Thus, this Record of Decision has a limited scope and is not intended toaddress all contamination related to the site. Section 300.68(c) of the NCPspecifically authorizes a response action to be conducted in discrete parts(referred to as operable units), each having a limited scope.
III. Site Location and Description
The 80 Lister Avenue property is located in the Ironbound section of Newark,New Jersey. The property occupies approximately 3.4 acres on the north sideof Lister Avenue. It is nearly rectangular in shape, extending about 373feet in an east-west direction and 405 feet north-south. The property fsbounded on the north by the Passaic River, on the east by the formal-Sergeant Chemical Company (120 Lister Avenue) site subsequently purchased byDiamond Shamrock, at the southeast corner by the Duralac Company property,and on the south and west by Sherwin-Williams Company property. Vehiculajaccess to the property is via a common right-of-way shared with Duralacentering the southeast corner of the property. The property is formallydescribed as Lots 56 and 59 in Block 2438 on the Newark tax maps .
The location of the site within Newark and the Ironbound section is shown onthe accompanying maps (Figures 1 thru 3).
Geology '.
The site is situated in the Piedmont Lowland section of the PiedmontPhysiographic Province. This province is located between the AtlanticCoastal Plain and the Valley and Ridge Province.
In New Jersey, the Piedmont Lowland section is underlain by igneous andsedimentary rocks of Triassic-Jurassic. Age. The igneous rocks in thesection are generally more resistant and form hills and ridges while thesedimentary rocks occur in the low areas. The section is characterized byrounded ridges separated by wide valleys and isolated hills which riseabruptly above the surrounding landscape. The general surface of thesection slopes from around Elevation 400 feet mean sea level (MSL) in thenorthwest to sea level at Newark Bay.
As an industrial area that has been occupied for over 100 years, the entiresite has been built up with fill. Approximately 6 to 8 feet of cinders,bricks, sand, and rubble have been placed over natural materials. In thisprocess, the site has been intentionally leveled. Total relief across thesite is approximately 3 feet with the lowest point along the railroad tracksat the southern boundary. Elevations vary between approximately 7 and 10feet MSL. Much of the site has been covered with either pavement or gravel.
830520009
i00
(OI*•
00
2*±UJ*<D<SK3OZ
,M
[(->ll
-(
t
S/TE
/-. - ,/ ..'-l -O*——-VNA'Qr rxC-s—-*"^*J'/T> / >^- tan t.M~ f:?/ /?STATf N . \
ROAD CLASSIFICATION:HEAVY DUTY
MEDIUM DUTY
LIGHT DUTY
4 MILESF I C U R E 1
SITE LOCATION MAP«0 LISTER AVENUE
OO
INTERSTATE
U.S. ROUTE
O STATE ROUTE
r 1984 IT CORPORATIONALL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED"Do Nol Sci'c Thu Drawing
PREPARED
D I A M O N D SHAMROCKD A L L A S , T E X A S
... Creatino a Safer Tomorrow
830520010
- 5 - 830520011
^\\
S C A L E"
6 2000
REFERENCE:4000 FEET
7.5 MINUTE USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLEMAPS OF: ELIZABETH AND JERSEY CITY. N.J.-N.^T. ,DATED: iser, PHOTOREVISED-- i9Bi, SCALE: i «zooo.
« 1M4 IT CORPORATIONALL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED
F I G U R E
SITE VICINITY MAP80 LISTER AVENUE
PREPARED FOR
DIAMOND SHAMROCKDALLAS, TEXAS
Creating a Safer Tomorrow"Do NO1 Scilc This Driving
- 6 - 830520012
CM(0+CD
11
!>
80 Litter Avenue
C H E M I C A L CODIAMOND ALKALI/CO, 120 LISTER AVE.
S H E R W l NW I L L I A M S C O
y/////*///, T R I P L E X CO. X///s .1 « i .. s / yys
ACCESS RIGHT OF WAY
L / STE R A VE.i I
AP PROXIMATE SCALE
200 400 FEET
REFERENCE:D I A M O N D A L K A L I COMPANYDWG. NO. 2NS-5B3-T I T L E D : R E A L ESTATE PROPERTY
IT CORPORATIONALL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED
F I G U R E 3
PLAT PLAN FOR 80 LISTER AVE.AND ADJACTNT PROPERTIES
PMtPANIO POM
D I A M O N D SHAMROCKD A L L A S , T E X A S
... Creating a Safer Tomorrow"Do Nol Sc*l* Tttn Drawing
830520013
(£>I
CO
CM
Si
a
*>.r
olODO I
O^-MANUFACTURINGB U I L D I N G
OOOO
KJUU I /OOO I /
T A N K — / (
DODliOOOOOO
FAR M
OO LJ
Doo o
FIVE STORY-OFFICE/P R O C E S S I N G BUILDING O
D oo pool O o Q|
oo
LTO O SO
T A N K FAR"M
T A N K S
APPROXIMATE SCALE^=60
• T A N K F A R M
120 FEET
LEGEND80 L ISTER A V E N U EPROPERTY BOUNDARY
r 1W4 IT CORPORATIONALL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED
F I G U R E 4
60 L ISTER AVENUEF A C I L I T Y LAYOUT
PR IOK TO EXPLOSIONFEBRUARY, I960
MEPAKID FON
DIAMOND SHAMROCKDALLAS , T E X A S
... Creating a Saf«r Tomorrow"Do Not Set* Thii Dt»«ing
- 8 -
Surface Water
The site is located in the Lower Valley portion of the Passaic Riverdrainage basin. The Lower Valley is the southeasterly portion of the basinlying between the Central Basin and the mouth of Newark Bay. It ischaracterized as a flat relatively narrow floodplain of 1,000 to 2,000 feetin width, abutting low rolling hills. From Dundee Dam to the mouth ofNewark Bay, the river is a tidal estuary and is navigable. The site isapproximately three miles upstream from the mouth of Newark Bay.
The closest known surface water gaging station on the Passaic River is atLittle Falls, New Jersey, which is approximately twenty-six river milesupstream from the site. The gaging station is also upstream from the DundeeDam, and therefore, river elevations at this station are much higher thanriver elevations at the site, and thus are not representative of siteconditions. Tidal elevations for the Passaic River at Newark are reportedby the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, 1972). Themean tidal range (difference in height between mean high water and meanlower water) is reported by NOAA as 5.1 feet. The spring range (averagesemidiurnal) range occurring semimonthly as a result of the moon being Newor Full is reported by NOAA as 6.1 feet with the mean tide level (midwaybetween mean low water and mean high water) at 2.5 feet.
•>The Passaic River basin lies in the tracks of most east coast storms and isconsequently subject to occasional rainfalls of great intensity. The typesof storms producing damaging floods on the Passaic include late summerstorms originating over the ocean to the south (such as 1881, 1903, 1945);fall or hurricane storms (such as 1810, 1919, 1938, and 1955); spring stormsoriginating over the continent to the west and southwest (such as 1819,1843, 1865). Of these storms, the greatest flood of record was due to thestorm of 1903 which, in the reach from Dundee Dam to the Newark Bay,inundated an area of 1,520 acres to a maximum depth of 14.5 feet. The mostrecent severe floods occurred in 1936, 1945, 1955, and 1968. \
Unlike upstream areas where flooding is controlled by rainfall events',flooding of the Passaic River at the site is controlled mainly by tidalinfluences. The greatest potential for inundation in the Lower Valley comesfrom the storm surge and tidal flooding associated with a major storm. Thecross-sectional area of the channel in the tidal zone of the river is sogreat in relation to the discharge that any rise in water level as a resultof rainfall is minimal when compared to elevation changes due to tides.According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood insurance study for theregion, flood elevations for the 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year tides are 7.5,9.3, 10.2, and 12.8 feet above MSL, respectively. Partial inundation of thesite from the Passaic River was reported in 1983.
Flooding occurs in the Lower Valley (and at the site) due to a relativelynarrow flood channel that is constricted by many bridges, heavy urbandevelopment along the river banks, and generally flat slopes that areconstrained by rock outcrops. The natural storage in the Central Basinreduces the contributing flood flows into the Lower Valley from theflash-flood susceptible highland tributaries (the Ramapo, Wanaque,Pequannock, Rockaway, and Whippany Rivers).
Ground Water
830520014
- 9 -
The source of ground water recharge at the site is precipitation that doesnot run off the land surface to streams or return to the atmosphere throughevapotranspiration. This precipitation infiltrates the ground and movesthrough and is stored in geologic formations. The regional aquifers in thevicinity of the site are the bedrock of the Brunswick Formation of Triassicage and the unconsolidated glacio-fluvial sands and gravel deposits ofPleistocene age.
The principal source of ground water in the area is the rock of theBrunswick Formation. The shales and sandstones are generally capable ofsustaining moderate to large yield wells, but the Orange Mountain Basalt iscapable of only small to moderate yields. The unconsolidated Pleistocenesand and gravel deposits, although capable of sustaining large yields, areof somewhat limited extent in the vicinity of the site.
Water in the rock of the Brunswick Formation occurs under both unconfinedand confined conditions. In the upland areas, the aquifer is generallyunconfined. In the lowlands of the Hackensack Meadows, the aquifer isgenerally confined or semiconfined by glacio-lacustrine clay. Where th^aquifer is confined by relatively impermeable layers, it is commonly underartesian pressure. The area around Newark has been subjected to heavypumping, however, and the artesian pressure has been reduced. In part ofNewark, extensive pumping has actually dewatered parts of the aquifer suchthat it no longer behaves as a confined aquifer. •?
Ground water moves in the bedrock both vertically and horizontally fromzones of secondary porosity through systems of interconnected joints andfractures. Most wells that are screened in this interval draw from morethan one water-bearing zone, but the boundaries of the zones have not beenaccurately defined. Some wells penetrate from 400 to 600 feet below groundsurface to reach these zones. The best producing wells, however are 300 to400 feet deep.
t.j-
The glacio-fluvial sands and gravels constitute an aquifer of limitedextent. In the site area, these materials occur as valley fill depositsoccupying buried bedrock valleys. The sands and gravels are generallyinterlayered with till and clays which reduce their total permeability;.However, where layers of coarse sand and gravel are encountered, wellsyielding 175 to 600 gallons per minute (gpm) have been developed.Unfortunately, pumping from this aquifer has also been in excess of freshwater recharge and, as a result, salt water intrusion has been known tooccur.
Ground water yields from the Brunswick Formation range from 35 to 820 gpmfor the shales and sandstones and from 7 to 400 gpm for the Orange MountainBasalt. Specific capacities of the wells in the shales and sandstonesranged from 0.2 to 70 gpra per foot of drawdown (averaging 11.1 gpm per footof drawdown). Specific capacities of wells in the basalt range from 0.05 to5.66 gpm per foot of drawdown (averaging 1.74 gpm per foot of drawdown).
Although the water quality of the bedrock aquifer is generally considered tobe good, salt water intrusion in the vicinity of the site has occurred as aresult of the heavy pumping in this industrialized area. In 1879, analysisof a ground water sample from this vicinity showed 6.2 ppm chloride. In1948, a ground water sample showed 1900 ppm chloride.
The heavy pumping has greatly lowered water levels in the area over the last
830520015
- 10 -
100 years. In eastern Newark adjacent to Newark Bay and the Passaic River,the water levels by the year 1900 had been pumped from 40 to 130 feet belowground surface. Continued pumping in the 1900's has lowered the water leveleven further. In 1879, evaluation of wells in the vicinity showed groundwater levels from a few feet above to 25 feet below the ground surface. Theheavy pumping has reversed the natural gradients in this vicinity and thedredging of the shipping channels in Newark Bay and the Passaic River hasexacerbated the salt water intrusion problem by removing part of the barrierbetween the ground and surface waters.
Site History
Industrial development on the site is reported to date from the 1870"s.Drawings from 1914, revised in 1922, show the site to be part of the ListerAgricultural Chemical Company property which extended for some distancealong the Passaic River. This plant site also included most of the othernearby industrial sites.
It was during the period of ownership by Lister that the site reached it*present dimensions following filling along the south shore of the PassaltRiver to form the northernmost 30 percent of the property. Much of thfremainder of the site is also filled with the granular material reportedlyused to fill the marsh land that existed in the natural state. Severalbuildings were on the site including the Lister power plant, which remainstoday as the chemical manufacturing building.
When Lister Agricultural Chemical Company ceased operations the property wassubdivided largely along the lines that form the present property boundariesand was sold. A 1.8-acre parcel (the northeast portion of the present site)was eventually acquired by the Kolker Chemical Works, Inc., which, by themid-1940's, was operating an agricultural chemicals plant on the site. Thiswas the beginning of the manufacturing operations that are related to thecurrent conditions at the site. %
Kolker was an early producer of both dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane (DDT)and the phenoxy herbicides. The exact dates when manufacture started is notknown, but it is believed that DDT production was underway before the end ofWorld War II and that herbicide production started by 1948. In addition toDDT and the phenoxy herbicides, other products of interest produced on thesite included hexachlorobenzene (HCB), ovex (a miticide), Lindane and lowgamma-benzene hexachloride (low gamma-BHC). Several derivatives of benzenesulfonyl chloride and sulfonates were also made, but these were all lowvolume products. In all cases, manufacture started with readily availableraw materials and the principal intermediates were made on the site.
The principal products made on the site by Kolker were DDT and the phenoxyherbicides. Ownership by Kolker ceased in March 1951 when the KolkerChemical Works was acquired by Diamond Alkali Company (Diamond ShamrockChemicals Company).
During this period the manufacture of several products was eithertransferred to other locations or discontinued, leaving the phenoxyherbicides as the only products of the plant. A major impetus for thischange was an explosion in February 1960 which destroyed several plantprocesses. When rebuilt the plant only included processes for themanufacture of the phenoxy hefbicides and their intermediates.
830520016
- 11 -Modernization and expansion continued during the 1960's, more than doublingtotal phenoxy capacity, to 15 million pounds per year.
The changes started in 1955 with the transfer of Lindane manufacture toanother location. Production of low gamma-BHC continued until 1957 or 1958when it also was relocated. The biggest change, however, was the transferof DDT production, which was moved to Texas in late 1958 or early 1959.During the late 1950*s several process changes were instituted to improvethe operating efficiency of the plant. Among these was a change institutedaround 1956 to the trichlorophenol (TCP) process effluent with theinstallation of an industrial sewer connecting to the Passaic ValleySewerage Commission (PVSC) Lister Avenue line. Following installation ofthat connection, most of the plant process wastes were discharged throughthe PVSC treatment plant.
An explosion in the TCP unit during February 1960 destroyed the largefive-story building in which it and several other plant processes had beenlocated. Following the explosion, a decision was made to limit futureproduction to the phenoxy herbicides, ending output of HCB, ovex and thebenzene sulfonyl chloride derivatives.
A larger site was required for rebuilding the plant on the scale desired, soan adjacent 1.6-acre parcel (consisting of the southwest portion of thepresent site) was leased from the Triplex Oil and Refining Company (latesrWalter Ray Holding Company). This site, which had been used for reclaimingoil, contained several buildings and large tanks which were razed to permitinstallation of a new laboratory and office building, a maintenanceshop/warehouse building, and a tank farm for flammable raw materials alongthe west side of the property.
Following demolition of the remains of the damaged building, a new processbuilding devoted to the manufacture of sodium trichlorophenol (NaTCP),2,4-dichlorophenol (2,4-DCP), monochloroacetic acid (MCA), and by-produgthydrochloric acid (HC1) was erected along the river near what had been thenorth end of the old building. Following this construction, the manufactureof the intermediates was carried out in the new buildings, leaving the oldbut undamaged chemical manufacturing building for the production of2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), 2,4,5,-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid(2,4,5-T), and their esters and amines.
The process building remains largely unchanged to this day. The onlyaddition was equipment installed in 1967 to purify the NaTCP by removingdioxin. The period 1963 to 1967 saw several major projects in the 2,4-D and2,4,5-T manufacturing areas which were designed to improve workingconditions, improve product quality, and expand capacity. Most significantamong these changes were:
0 1963 - The 2,4-D acid process was rehabilitated. The roof wasraised permitting installation of new ventilating ducts to carryprocess fumes to a new caustic scrubber.
0 1965 - The melt, washing, and drying process for the production ofdry, flaked 2,4-D was installed, with a 40 percent increase incapacity. These changes also reduced personnel contact with the2,4-D.
830520017
- 12 -
0 1967 - The final plant expansion saw the construction of a new andlarger 2,4-D unit and the conversion of the former 2,4-D unit to themanufacture of 2,4,5-T. The TCP purification process for dioxinremoval via carbon filtration was added as part of this sameexpansion.
Operation at the plant continued until August 1969 when it was shut down.The production units were cleaned out as they were shut down, and betweenSeptember and December the remaining raw materials and products were soldand shipped. The plant was listed for sale and remained idle throughout1970 until it was purchased by Chemicaland Corporation in March 1971. It isnoted that Chemicaland actually purchased the 1.8 acres and improvementsowned by Diamond Shamrock, which then assigned rights to the 1.6 acres ithad leased from Walter Ray Holding Company to Chemicaland.
Following purchase of the property by Chemicaland, equipment was installedfor the manufacture of benzyl alcohol which was to be made and sold byCloray NJ Corporation, an affiliate of Chemicaland. Production of benzylalcohol was not profitable, so an attempt was made to expand their productline by manufacturing on a toll basis. These efforts were all unsuccessfuland production ceased during the summer of 1973. ~~
In September 1973, Chemicaland contracted with Diamond Shamrock to produce2,4-D on a toll basis and started rehabilitating the plant so that it coulSagain make 2,4-D. Rehabilitation of the plant was completed sometime duringthe spring of 1974 and production of 2,4-D resumed. Limited quantities of2,4-D were produced during the summer of 1974, but none was delivered toDiamond Shamrock under the contract. Operations were suspended and theplant staff was laid off in September 1974.
Arrangements were then made by Chemicaland to produce 2,4-D on a toll basisfor a second time and work resumed in February 1975. Limited quantities of2,4-D were being produced by April 1975. Production of 2,4-D continued fty:the next 22 months, but output varied widely. Chemicaland scavenge^equipment from unused processes such as TCP purification and 2,4,5-T for usein their 2,4-D unit and made temporary repairs to bypass failed equipment.The only major addition to the process known to have been made byChemicaland was the Installation of a second 2,4-D reactor during May 1976%However, this addition was soon negated by the failure of the originalreactor. The maximum monthly output of 2,4-D by Chemicaland was reported tobe about 500,000 pounds.
In November 1976, while they were considering acquisition of Chemicaland,Occidental Chemical Company assumed control of the management of the plantand continued to manage the plant until February 24, 1977, when theyreturned control of the plant to Chemicaland. Because Chemicaland did nothave the resources to continue operating without the support of Occidental,they laid off all plant personnel and shut down the plant on February 24,1977.
The property remained idle through 1980, but the ownership changed asWilliam Leckie (the successor to Walter Ray Holding Company) purchased the1.8 acres owned by Cheroicaland in a tax sale, consolidating ownership in hisname. In March 1981 Leckie sold the site to Marisol, Inc.
Little is known of the use of the property by Marisol, but eventually this
830520018
- 13 -
company started cleaning and clearing the site. Concerning the cleanup, itis known that:
0 The product left in the equipment when the plant was shut down onFebruary 24, 1977, was removed and placed in drums, of which 570remain on site today.
0 Some equipment known to be on the site following the shutdown wasremoved.
0 Warehouse space and tankage was leased to SCA Corporation which usedit in conjunction with waste disposal operations at theirneighboring plant. The date that SCA started to use the site is notexactly known, but was prior to the summer of 1982.
During the spring of 1983, SCA continued to lease and use a portion of thesite, while Marisol was working to prepare the office building foroccupancy. This was the situation in May 1983 when results of samples takenin April by the USEPA showed high levels of dioxin on the site and NJDEPmoved to control access to the property. *
Present Status-5-
Upon the discovery of the presence of high concentrations of TCDD in May of1983, the site was evacuated and secured. All exposed soils were coveredwith geofabric to prevent potential migration of contamination by surfacerunoff and wind blown particulates. In addition, the site is guarded 24hours per day. These provisions have been maintained and are currently inplace.
IV. Remedial Investigation Findings
A. 80 Lister Avenue \
A comprehensive field investigation and sampling program was developed forthe remedial investigation. All activities conducted on the site werecompleted in accordance with a site specific workplan and health and safetyplan, reviewed and approved by NJDEP. All activities were also completedunder direct supervision and direction of NJDEP.
A variety of sampling activities was performed to characterize the levels ofchemical contamination at the site. These included:
0 Ambient air samples0 Industrial hygiene samples0 Chip, wipe, and bulk samples from existing buildings, tanks, piping,
equipment, and sewers
0 Samples of soil
0 Samples of ground water0 Samples of Passaic River water and sediments
Samples of background soil830520019
- 14 -0 Samples of on-site drums
A more detailed discussion of the remedial investigation results follows.
Ambient Air Sampling and Results
Ten sets of ambient air samples were subjected to detailed chemicalanalysis. As requested by the NJDEP, those sets of samples having the tenhighest iron and manganese concentrations were analyzed.
The total suspended particulafe matter (TSP) concentrations ranged from 85to 254 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m1) with five days recordingconcentrations in excess of 150 ug/m1. The inhalable particulate matter(1PM) concentrations ranged from 56 to 196 ug/m1; the maximum value occurredon the same day as the maximum TSP concentration. The concentration of allmetals except iron were less than 1 ug/mj on all days. The ironconcentrations ranged from 0.682 to 1.259 ug/m1, with the maximum occurringon the day of maximum TSP and IPM concentrations.
On only two of the days chosen for analysis was any concentration of dioxinrecorded. The observed concentrations were 86 picograms per cubic metef(pg/m1) and 286 pg/m1. Vinyl chloride was found on only five of the tendays chosen for analysis. The observed vinyl chloride concentrations rangedfrom 0.15 to 0.33 ug/m1. Nine samples were analyzed for volatile organiccompounds (VOC). Total VOC concentrations ranged from 71 to 182 ug/m1.
The asbestos fiber counts were all less than 0.01 fibers per cubiccentimeter. The concentrations of pesticides and polynuclear aromatics(PNA) for the samples analyzed are provided in the attached Appendix. Theobserved pesticide and PNA concentrations were all less than theirpermissible exposure levels.
All air volumes utilized in calculation of concentrations reflectcalibration correction. Analytical results were used as prepared by thilaboratory with adjustments for recoveries, breakthrough, or blanks. ;
Building and Structures Sampling and Results r
Wipe, chip, and bulk samples were collected to evaluate the buildings andstructures for potential contamination. Wipe samples were collected fromcoated floors, walls, fixtures, and air ducts. Chip samples were collectedwhenever possible from exposed concrete floors and building exterior orbrick surfaces. All wipe and chip samples were analyzed for dioxin only.Bulk samples were taken to determine the possible presence of asbestos ininsulation and other building materials. Selected bulk samples were alsoanalyzed for dioxin.
a. Office and Laboratory Building
Of the 40 samples collected in this building, dioxin was detected in 32 andone sample was voided. Dioxin concentrations of the first floor wipesamples ranged from 38 to 1,100 ng/m*. Dioxin concentrations of first floorchip samples ranged from 2.0 to 69.3 ppb. Fifteen of 15 first floor sampleswere identified as containing dioxin. Dioxin concentrations of the wipesamples taken on the second floor ranged from 10 to 14,000 ng/ra* with 11 ofthe 11 valid samples having dioxin identified. The dioxin concentrations of
830520020
- 15 -
chip samples from the exterior of the building ranged from 0.57 to 2.4 ppbwith 5 of 11 samples having dioxin identified. One exterior wipe sample hada dioxin concentration of 168 ng/m2; the other showed no dioxin present.
b. Warehouse
Of the 24 samples collected, 21 samples showed detectable levels of dioxin.The dioxin concentrations of interior wipe and chip samples ranged from 130to 19,000 ng/m2 and from 48.7 to 192 ppb, respectively. All 11 interiorsamples had positive dioxin results. The dioxin concentrations of exteriorchip samples ranged from 1.0 to 16.5 ppb with 9 of 12 samples havingpositive results. The single exterior wipe sample showed dioxin present at13 ng/m2.
c. Manufacturing Building
Positive dioxin results were obtained for 27 of the 28 samples collected.The dioxin concentrations of interior chip samples ranged from 1.0 to 1,280ppb; 14 of 14 samples collected showed positive results. The concentrationrange for interior wipe samples was 233 to 7,000 ng/m2, with all foucsamples having dioxin identified. The dioxin concentrations of exteriorchip samples ranged from 0.93 to 203 ppb, with 9 of 9 samples havingpositive results. Dioxin was not detected in the exterior wipe sample. -
d. Process Building
All 29 samples collected had identifiable dioxin concentrations. The dioxinlevels detected for the 12 interior wipe samples ranged from 60 to 41,600ng/m2. The dioxin concentrations of the three interior chip samples rangedfrom 43.2 to 696 ppb. Dioxin concentrations for the seven exterior chipsamples ranged from 2.7 to 1,580 ppb. The two exterior wipe samples showeddioxin levels of 6.4 and 12 ng/m2. The bulk samples collected ranged from3.0 to 128 ppb with five of five samples having positive dioxin results. *
e. Other Structures (Stack. Solvent Shed, pump house)
All six chip samples collected had detectable levels of dioxin ranging frojn1.2 to 50.0 ppb. Dioxin was detected at 0.17 ppb in the bulk samplecollected.
f. Tanks
Tank samples were taken from chemical process vessels and outside storagetanks. A total of 140 tank samples were collected with 12 being designatedfor dioxin analysis. Nine samples (75 percent) had positive dioxin results,with concentrations ranging from 5.0 to 60,800 ppb.
g. Sewers and Sumps Sampling and Results
Four sewer and eight sump samples were collected for dioxin analysis. Ofthe 12 samples taken all showed positive dioxin results, with concentrationsranging from 105-9,160 ppb.
Near Surface Soils
830520021
- 16 -
Twenty-one geotechnical borings were drilled on or near the site.Split-spoon and Shelby tube samples from the borings were logged accordingto both the USGS and Burnister classification system. Fill ranging inthickness from 8 to 15 feet is present at the surface. The fill isunderlain by an organic silt which is in turn underlain by glacio-fluvialsands. On the southern portion of the site, the silt consists of an upperorganic layer and a lower layer with lenses of clay and sand.
Near-surface soil samples were obtained to a depth of 60 inches. Samplesfrom depth intervals of zero to 6 inches, 6 to 12 inches, and 12 to 24inches were collected for the chemical analyses designated in the WorkPlan. Below a depth of 24 inches, near-surface locations were continuouslysampled at 12-inch intervals to a depth of 60 inches. Of the 63near-surface soil samples analyzed for dioxin, all had identifiable dioxinconcentrations ranging from 0.39 to 19,500 ppb. Forty-two near-surface soilsamples were analyzed for priority pollutants. Of the 69 semi-volatilecompounds, 28 were identified one or more times in the depth intervals ofzero to 6 and 12 to 24 inches. At zero to 6 inches, 24 compounds wereidentified. For 12 to 24 inches, 26 compounds were identified excludingmethylene chloride and acetone. Toluene was detected at highes£concentrations (2,000,000 ppb) followed by xylenes (310,000 ppb) andchlorobenzene (84,000 ppb). Of the 38 volatile organic compounds, 13 wereidentified one or more times. Of the 35 herbicide, pesticide, and PCScompounds, seven were identified one or more times. DDT was detected mostfrequently and in highest concentration (620-5,090,000 ppb), followed by DDD(1,200-164,000 ppb), and 2,4,5-T (490-86,000 ppb). Of the 13 metals, 12were identified one or more times. Thallium was not identified in thenear-surface samples.
Boring Soil Samples
Boring soil samples were also collected at thirteen locations on site. Fivesamples were obtained for designated analyses at each of seven locations. i
Of the 39 boring soil samples analyzed for dioxin, at depths of zero to fiinches, the dioxin concentrations ranged from 19.7 ppb to 2,700 ppb. At 6to 12 inches, the dioxin concentrations ranged from 7.5 ppb to 3510 ppb, andat 12 to 24 inches, the dioxin concentration ranged from 4.7 ppb to 830ppb. Samples from directly above the silt had dioxin concentrations rangingfrom 0.36 ppb to 71.8 ppb. Samples from the silt zone had dioxinconcentrations ranging from 0.49 ppb to 2.8 ppb with three of seven samplesnot having detectable concentrations of dioxin. Twenty-four boring soilsamples above the silt were analyzed for priority pollutants, but samples inthe silt layer were not.
Of the 69 semi-volatile compounds, 27 were identified one or more times inthe samples from zero to 6 inches, 12 to 24 inches or above the silt. Atzero to 6 inches, 20 compounds were identified; at 12 to 24 inches, 27compounds were identified. In the soil samples taken from above the silt,17 compounds were observed. Compounds detected most frequently and athighest concentration were 2,4-D (1,400,000 ppb), 2,4,5-T (270,000 ppb), andhexachlorobenzene (84,000 ppb). Of the 38 volatile organic compounds, 10were identified one or more times in the samples from zero to 6 inches, 12to 24 inches and above the silt. At zero to 6 inches, three compounds wereidentified; at 12 to 24 inches, eight compounds were identified. Forsamples from above silt, seven compounds were identified.
830520022
- 17 -
Excluding methylene chloride and acetone, only toluene (7-2,400 ppb) andchlorobenzene (49-20,000 ppb) were detected in more than 50% of the samplesanalyzed.
Of the 35 herbicides, pesticides, and PCB compounds, 10 were identified oneor more times in the samples from zero to 6 inches, 12 to 24 inches andabove the silt. At zero to 6 inches, nine compounds were identified; at 12to 24 inches, nine compounds were identified; and in the samples from abovethe silt, eight compounds were identified.
Ground Water Sampling and Results
The results of the ground water investigation at the site are presented inthe following discussion.
Ground water flow rates were calculated based on the calculated hydraulicconductivities and the gradients (change in head per unit distance)determined. An effective porosity of 0.30 was used for the fill. From thecenter of the site northward to the river, the computed ground water flo^rate ranged from 0.6 to 4.0 feet per day. From the center of the site tothe south, the range was 0.5 to 1.3 feet per day.
r
Two sets of ground water samples were collected from each of the eightoriginal on-site monitoring wells. Based on these preliminary dioxinresults, the ground water from monitoring well MV-2A was sampled a thirdtime.
The first two rounds of ground water samples from all eight wells wereanalyzed for full priority pollutants plus 40 and dioxin. The third groundwater sample from MV-2A was analyzed only for dioxin.
-*.j-
Of the 17 ground water samples analyzed for dioxin, 15 had dioxihconcentrations up to 10.4 ppb. For the three ground water samples collectedfrom MW-2A, reanalysis of 5 to 1 dilutions was required to provide resultsin the instrument linear calibration range. Sixteen ground water sampleswere analyzed for full priority pollutants. Of the 69 semi-volatil*compounds, 19 were identified in the initial round of samples, 24 compoundswere identified in the second round of samples. Compounds detected mostfrequently and at highest concentration were 2,4-D (58,000 ppb), 2,4,5,-T(26,000 ppb), and 2,4,6-TCP (11,000 ppb). Of the 38 volatile organiccompounds, 18 were identified one or more times in each of the two rounds ofsampling. Compounds detected most frequently and at highest concentrationwere chlorobenzene (23,000 ppb), benzene (7,900 ppb), and toluene (3,300ppb).
Of the 35 possible herbicides, pesticides and PCB compounds, eight wereidentified one or more times in the first round samples and six compoundswere identified in the second round samples. Compounds detected mostfrequently and at highest concentration were 2,4-D (27,000 ppb), DDT (22,000ppb), and 2,4,5-T (5,600 ppb). Of the 13 metals, 11 were identified one ormore times in the first round samples and 12 metals were identified in thesecond round samples.
Passaic River Water and Sediment Sampling and Results
Two Passaic River water samples were collected concurrent with the ground
830520023
- 18 -
water sampling for the eight on-site wells. Both samples were analyzed fordioxin and full priority pollutants. Both samples had non detectable (ND)results for dioxin at 0.004 ppb and 0.007 ppb detection limits respectively.
Of the 38 volatile organic compounds, six were detected in the first sampleand five were detected in the second. Only two of the 69 semi-volatilecompounds were detected in the first sample and one semivolatile compound inthe second sample. Only two of the 35 total herbicide/pesticide/PCB's weredetected in the first water sample, none were detected in the second. Of apossible 13 metals, four were detected in both Passaic River water samples.
Sediment samples were taken at twenty-three locations in the Passaic Riverin the vicinity of the site. In total, 36 samples were collected fordioxin--23 samples at depths of zero to 12 inches and 13 samples at depthsof 12 to 24 inches. Fifteen priority pollutant samples were taken, 10samples at depths of zero to 12 inches and five samples at depths of 12 to24 inches.
Of the 36 Passaic River sediment samples analyzed for dioxin, 26 samples hadidentifiable dioxin concentrations. At zero to 12 inches, the dioxinconcentrations ranged from 0.53 to 10.8 ppb with six samples having nondetectable dioxin concentrations at a detection limit of 0.78 ppb. At 12 ib24 inches, the dioxin concentrations ranged from 0.63 to 130 ppb with foufsamples having non detectable dioxin concentrations at the 0.78 pp1>detection limit.
Of the 69 semi-volatile compounds, 17 were identified one or more times inthe zero to 12 inch or 12 to 24 inch samples. Fourteen compounds wereidentified at zero to 12 inches. Seventeen compounds were identified at 12to 24 inches.
Of the 38 volatile organic compounds, 10 were identified in one or moresamples at the zero to 12 inch or 12 to 24 inch depths. Eight compoundswere identified at depths of zero to 6 inches. Ten compounds wetfeidentified at depths of 12 to 24 inches. ^
Of the 35 herbicide, pesticide, and PCB compounds, 11 were identified one ormore times in the zero to 12 inch or 12 to 24 inch samples. Ten compoundswere identified at depths of zero to 12 inches. Eight compounds wereidentified at 12 to 24 inches. Of the 13 metals, 11 were identified one ormore times in the zero to 12 inch or 12 to 24 inch samples.
Background Samples and Results
Samples were taken and analyzed for priority pollutant and dioxin analysisat four locations off the site. Three samples were taken at HarrisonAvenue, Raymond Boulevard, and Roanoke Avenue in Newark, New Jersey.Samples from Boring B-14 on the adjoining Sherwin-Williams property used forthe installation of a monitoring well were also used to establish backgroundlevels of dioxin and priority pollutants.
830520024
- 19 -
Sherwin-Williams
Five samples were taken from the Sherwin-Williams property for analysis.Samples collected at depths from zero to 6 inches, 6 to 12 inches, 12 to 24inches, immediately above the silt zone, and in the silt zone were analyzedfor dioxin. Samples from depths of zero to 6 inches, 12 to 24 inches, andimmediately above the silt were analyzed for dioxin and prioritypollutants. Three of the five samples taken had detectable concentrationsof dioxin. Of the 69 acid/base/neutral compounds, 20 were reported one ormore times in the three samples analyzed. Of the 38 volatile organiccompounds, three were reported one or more times; of the 35 herbicide,pesticide, and PCB compounds, two were reported one or more times; and ofthe 13 metals, 11 were reported all three times.
Newark
Samples collected at Harrison Avenue, Raymond Boulevard, and Roanoke Avenuewere taken to establish a background for the area. These areas wereconsidered to be representative of conditions prevalent within the city <5fNewark. Three samples were collected at depths of zero to 6 inches andanalyzed for priority pollutants and dioxin. '
Of the 69 semi-volatile compounds, 16 were identified in the Newarkbackground samples one or more times. Compounds detected most frequentlyand at highest concentration were hexachlorobenzene (620,000 ppb), chrysene(3,700 ppb) and fluorene (2,800 ppb). Of the 35 herbicide, pesticide, andPCB compounds, three were detected one or more times with PCB beingdetected. Of the 11 metals, 11 were identified one or more times. Positivetotal cyanide and phenol results were reported for four of the six samplesanalyzed.
On-Site Drums Sampling and Results (Waste Categorization)•».*
Subsequent to sampling and initial field testing of each drmi,individual samples were composited for further waste categorizationtesting. Composites were limited to six drums per composite groupingand were based on such similarities as pH, drum content, and physicalappearance. The major purpose of compositing drum samples was tosurvey the drums for dioxin contamination and to categorize theirpreliminary waste and hazard characteristics.
Composite drum samples and certain individual drums were tested forgross physical properties or waste categorization parameters.
Ten parameters were.examined in the drum sampling program. They were:
0 Water reactivity - solubility0 Water reactivity - temperature change0 Percent lower explosive limit (LEL)
PHPresence of oxidizable materials (OX)Presence of peroxides (peroxide)Sample typeOpen cup ignitabilityOpen cup flashpointPresence of halogens (halogens).
830520025
- 20 -
The results of this sampling event will be used to determine disposalalternatives and methodology. All drums are currently secured on site andmonitored.
0 Dioxin Analysis
Dioxin analysis was performed on 22 selected drum samples. Drums to betested were selected by one of two criteria—either the drum wasrepresentative of a major group of drums or it had some particularassociation with the manufacturing process. Of the 22 drums analyzed,15 showed positive results, ranging from a low of 1.5 ppb to a high of12,200 ppb. Seven of the 22 samples had no detectable quantity ofdioxin present. If the result for a particular drum was positive fordioxin, all the drums in its associated composite were also consideredcontaminated.
A summary of the results of the remedial investigation is presented intabular form as an Appendix. ~=
- *^B. 120 Lister Avenue =
Similar to 80 Lister Avenue, a comprehensive field investigation andsampling program was developed for the remedial investigation of the 12$Lister Avenue property. All activities conducted at the site were completedin accordance with a site specific work plan and health and safety plan,reviewed and approved by NJDEP. All activities were also completed underdirect supervision and direction of NJDEP.
A variety of sampling activities was performed to characterize the levels ofchemicals contamination at the site. These included:
f ° Ambient air samples *
e Industrial hygiene samples0 Chip, wipe, and bulk samples from existing buildings, tanks
trailers and equipment
0 Soil samples0 Ground water samples0 Surface water samples0 Drum samples
A more detailed discussion of the remedial investigation result follows.
Ambient Air Sampling and Results
Eighty-six ambient air samples were collected on the 120 Lister Avenuesite. Of the 86 samples, 18 (21 percent) were analyzed for dioxin only. Ofthe 18, 5 were not reported due to laboratory complications. Of the 13reported ambient air results, 12 had non-detected dioxin concentrations.One sample had an identified dioxin concentration of 33.5 pg/m , however,due to matrix interference(s), analysis did not meet all of the
830520026
- 21 -
identification criteria for dioxin, and therefore the identification wasconsidered tentative.
Building and Structures
Chip and wipe samples were collected from the buildings and structures atthe 120 Lister Avenue site to evaluate potential contamination. Chipsamples were collected from the interior walls, exterior walls, floor, androof of each of the three buildings. Wipe samples were collected from thetanks, trailers, equipment, and assorted hardware and supplies.
a. Buildings
Of the 18 chip samples collected from the three buildings on the 120 ListerAvenue site, positive dioxin results were obtained for half (9) of thesesamples, however, none of the results exceeded the action level of 7.0 ppb.Dioxin concentration in the 9 chip samples ranged from 0.13 ppb to 6.3 ppm.
b. Tank. Trailers, and Equipment .IK«:
Sixteen wipe samples were collected from the tanks, trailers, and equipmentlocated at the 120 Lister Avenue site. Two of the 16 samples were positivefor dioxin with concentrations of 7.9 ng/m and 11.0 ng/m . _£
Soils
A total of 23 geotechnical borings were drilled at the site. Split spoonand Shelby tube samples from the borings were logged according to both theUS6S and Burmeister Classification Systems, similar to the investigationcompleted for 80 Lister Avenue .
Of the 72 samples analyzed for TCDD to a depth of 60 inches, 54 hadidentifiable concentrations ranging from 0.19 to 490 ppb. Of the 15 sample^analyzed for TCDD from 60 to 132 inches, 10 had identifiable concentration*of TCDD ranging from 0.23 to 93.7 ppb.
A total of 42 soil samples from the 120 Lister Avenue site were analyzed forfull priority pollutant parameters and dioxin. Samples were collected andanalyzed for depths ranging from 0 to 11 feet.
Of the 69 semi-volatile compounds, 13 were identified one or more times.Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phathalate was detected most often and at highestconcentration (up to 90,000 ppb), followed by pyrene (up to 39,000 ppb). Ofthe 38 volatile organic compounds, 3 were identified one or more times.Methylene chloride (up to 750 ppb) and chlorobenzene and benzene (up to 120ppb) were the volatile organics identified. Of the 35 herbicide, pesticide,and PCB compounds, five were identified one or more times, with 4,4-DDTbeing detected at the highest concentration (up to 480,000 ppb) followed byalpha-BHC (up to 50,000 ppb).
Ground Water Sampling and Results
Based upon the ground water level measurements and slug tests performed inthe six monitor wells on 120 Lister Avenue, estimates of the ground waterflow directions and associated rates were calculated. Estimates of thevertical flow of ground water from the fill material through the silt to theglacio-fluvial sand deposit were also determined.
830520027
- 22 -
Ground water flow velocities in the surficial fill at 120 Lister Avenue werecomputed from the gradients (piezometric head divided by distance) and thehydraulic conductivities. Computed horizontal ground water velocitiesranging from 2.2 to 3.1 feet per day from the center of the site northtowards the river and from 0.3 to 0.6 feet per day form the center of thesite to the southern boundary.
The vertical hydraulic gradient and an estimate of the vertical hydraulicconductivity of the silt layer were used to calculate the ground watervelocities from the fill through the silt into the underlying sand unit.Assuming an average silt layer thickness of 8.5 feet, the average computedvelocity is 1.6x10 feet per day.
Hydraulic conductivity testing in the glacio-fluvial sand indicated anaverage value of 2.32 feet per day in the upper sand unit and 0.23 feet perday in the lower sand unit.
Five ground water samples were collected from the 120 Lister Avenue site andanalyzed for full priority pollutants and dioxin. ^
i*Dioxin was not detected in any of the five ground water samples taken frowthe 120 Lister Avenue site. A total of 23 organic compounds were detectedat least once. Of these 23, benzene, chlorobenzene, and 4,4-DDT weredetected with the highest frequency. Concentrations of the detectedorganics ranged from 0.3 ppb for B-BHC to 790 ppb for 2,4,-Dichlorophenol.
Of the 14 inorganic compounds analyzed for, 14 were identified ranging inconcentration from 0.01 ppb for total phenol to 36 ppb for Zinc.
Surface Water Sampling and Results
Prior to disposal of water used on site during the investigation, samplingwas conducted to determine if dioxin was present. In addition, several,other parameters, including COD, BOD, TOC, and TDS were analyzed. ~
Of the two samples analyzed, one had a detectable concentration of 0.013 ppbTCDD. The other sample was non-detect at a detection limit of 0.0019 ppb. :
Drum Sampling and Results
Eighteen drums samples were analyzed for hazardous waste characterization,EP toxicity and PCBs. Samples were also taken for TCDD analysis and havebeen placed in archieve for possible future analysis.
V. Risks Presented by the Site
As previously reported in earlier sections of this ROD, the results of theremedial investigation indicate that the site is contaminated by a largenumber of hazardous substances. Chemicals presenting especially.great risksbecause of their toxicities and concentrations are TCDD and DOT. Thecontamination at the site is widespread, affecting most media includingsoils, structures, ground water and air. Routes for exposure to thesehazardous substances are discussed below.
Direct On-Site Contact
830520028
- 23 -
The following measures have been taken to lessen the risk of direct on-siteexposure of humans to hazardous substances:
0 Access to the site is controlled by fencing and by a 24-hoursecurity service
Those persons authorized for site access are required to wearprotective clothing and equipment
0 A geotextile fabric covering the site minimizes the potential fordirect contact with soil
As a result of these measures, the risk of on-site exposure is currently nota concern.
Migration of Hazardous Substances to the Passaic River
The remedial investigation indicates that hazardous substances are beingreleased from the site to the Passaic River through the routes of groundwater migration and surface runoff of stormwater. The remedialinvestigation also identified TCDD and other hazardous substance in PassafeRiver sediments. A separate study of the contamination of Passaic Riversediments is being conducted by Diamond Shamrock. Results of that studyshow that the more recent sediments contain relatively little TCDO comparedto older sediments. The data suggests that releases of TCDD to the PassaicRiver were much greater in the past during the period of pesticideproduction at the site than at the present. TCDD has also been found inbiota from the Passaic River and nearby water.
The releases of hazardous substances from the site to the Passaic Riverpresent a continuing risk to the environment and to humans who may ingestcontaminated fish and shellfish. The latter risk has been reduced byNJDEP's advisories against fish consumption and ban on commercial fishing. •?
Migration of Hazardous Substances to Deeper Aquifers
A component of the contaminated ground water in the fill layer flowsdownward into the lower aquifers which are influenced by industrial wells inthe area. Since there are no potable wells in the area, ingestion ofcontaminated ground water Is not a great concern at this time. However,there is still some risk of exposure via the industrial wells pumping fromthe deeper aquifers. The fact that the migration of TCDD and DOT in groundwater is attenuated by adsorption of these compound on soil substantiallyreduces this risk.
Migration of Airborne Hazardous Substances
Hazardous substances can be released from the site into the air byvolatilization and by dust generation. While the geotextile fabric reducesdust generation form the soil, the buildings and structures at the site area potential source of airborne dust. As previously reported in this ROD,TCDD and other hazardous substances were measured in ambient air samplestaken on-site. Inhalation of airborne hazardous substances migratingoff-site is an exposure route. Control of air emissions from the site willbe a prime concern during remedial activities since the remedial activitiescan be expected to generate dust and expose volatile chemicals to the air.
830520029
- 24 -
Chapter 3 of the Feasibility Study Report quantifies some of the risksdiscussed about and provides a more detailed analysis.
VI. The Criteria for Remedy Selection
1. The Law and Regulations that Govern this ROD
EPA's selection of a remedial alternative must be in accordance with therequirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, andLiability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. Sees. 9601 et seq. . as amendedby the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) (enacted October17, 1986), and the requirements of its governing regulations, the NationalOil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 C.F.R.Part 300. Accordingly, the Agency has selected a remedy that is consistentwith its governing statute.
2. The Substantive Legal Requirements
Under its legal authorities, EPA's responsibility at Superfund sites is toundertake remedial actions that are necessary in order to protect the publichealth and welfare and the environment. In Section 121 of SARA, Congressprovides guidelines which the Agency must follow in selecting remedies whicnassure protection of human health and the environment. These guidelines ar£discussed below. ^
First, in Section 121(b), Congress creates a statutory preference forremedial actions in which treatment permanently and significantly reducesthe volume, toxicity or mobility of the hazardous substance, pollutants orcontaminants. In assessing various permanent solutions, EPA mustspecifically address the long-term effectiveness of the differentalternatives. EPA shall, at a minimum, take into account:
(A) the long-term uncertainties associated with land disposal; -f(B) the goals and requirements of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA); -(C) the persistence, toxicity, mobility and propensities of the _
hazardous substances and constituents to bioaccumulate; ;(D) the short and long-term potential for adverse health effects from
human exposure;(E) long-term maintenance costs;(F) the potential for future remedial action costs if the alternative
remedial action in question were to fail;(G) the potential threat to human health and the environment
associated with excavation, transportation, and redlsposal, orcontainment.
Congress prescribes that in choosing its final remedy, EPA must select aremedial action that uses permanent solutions and alternative treatmenttechnologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extentpracticable.
Second, pursuant to Section 121(c), if EPA selects a remedial action thatresults in any hazardous substance, pollutants or contaminants remaining atthe site, EPA must review such remedial action at least every 5 years afterthe initiation of such remedial action to assure that human health and theenvironment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented.In addition, if upon such review it is the judgement of EPA that action is
830520030
- 25 -
appropriate at such site in accordance with Section 104 or 106, EPA musttake or require such action.
Third, in Section 121(d)(2), Congress provides that EPA's remedial action,when conducted on-site, must comply with applicable or relevant andappropriate environmental standards established under Federal and Stateenvironmental laws (such applicable or relevant and appropriate requirementssometimes will be referred to as ARARs). However, Section 121(d)(4) allowsEPA to select a remedy that does not comply with all ARARs, if EPA findsthat:
(A) the remedial action selected is only part of a total remedialaction that will attain such level or standard of control whencompleted;
(B) when compliance with such requirement at that facility willresultin greater risk to human health and the environment thanalternative options;
(C) compliance with such requirements is technically impracticable froman engineering perspective; '
(D) the remedial action selected will attain a standard of performancethat is equivalent to that required under the otherwise applicablestandard, requirement, criteria, or limitation, through use ofanother method or approach;
(E) with respect to a State standard, requirement, criteria, orlimitation, the State has not consistently applied (or demonstratedthe intention to consistently apply) the standard requirement,criteria, or limitation in similar circumstances at other remedialactions within the State; or
f(F) in the case of a remedial action to be undertaken solely under
Section 104 using the Fund, selection of a remedial action thatattains such level or standard of control will not provide _abalance between the need for protection of public health andwelfare and the environment at the facility under consideration,and the availability of amounts from the Fund to respond to othersites which present or may present a threat to public health orwelfare or the environment, taking into consideration the relativeimmediacy of such threats.
Fourth, in Section 121(d)(3), Congress established requirements for actionsinvolving the transfer of any hazardous substance or pollutant orcontaminant off-site (e.g., to an off-site commercial treatment or disposalfacility). This Section requires that the off-site facility be operating incompliance with Section 3004 and 3005 of RCRA (or, where applicable incompliance with other applicable Federal law) and with . all Staterequirements. In addition, this Section provides further restrictionsregarding the use of off-site land disposal facilities that are releasinghazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents to ground water, surfacewater or soil.
In addition, Section 121 (a) requires the selection of a remedy which, inaddition to meeting all other criteria of Section 121, provides forcost-effective response. In evaluating cost-effectiveness of remedial
830520031
- 26 -
alternatives, EPA must take into account the short-term and long-term costsof these alternatives including the costs of operation and maintenance forthe entire period during which such activities will be required.
VII. Description and Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives
The remedial alternatives which were developed in detail in the FeasibilityStudy are listed and briefly described in Table I. Cost estimates for theseremedial alternatives are presented in Table II. A detailed description ofthe process for screening remedial technologies and developing remedialalternatives is found in the Feasibility Study report. For each remedialalternative, a description and evaluation follows.
Alternative 1 - No Action
The no-action alternative includes the maintenance of the site fence,geotextile fabric, security systems, and the establishment of an ongoingmonitoring program. The site would essentially remain as it currentlyexists except that all materials remaining on 120 Lister Avenue (east of th*fence separating 80 Lister Avenue from 120 Lister Avenue) with dioxinconcentrations in excess of 7 ppb will be transferred to 80 Lister Avenuefor storage. -
The risks presented by the site after implementing Alternative 1 would beessentially the same as those discussed previously in Section V of thisROD. In view of these risks, Alternative 1 (no action ) does not assureprotection of the environment or of human health. Since Section 121 (d) (1)of CERCLA requires that the selected remedy assure such protection,Alternative 1 cannot be selected.
Alternative 2 - On-Site Containment with Cap and Slurry Vail
This alternative would rely on the on-site containment of wastes by th^construction of an Impermeable barrier (slurry wall) and a cap meeting RCRArequirements (see Figures 5 and 6). Only a portion of 120 Lister Avenuewhere soil concentrations of dioxin are less than 7 ppb would be outside ofthe containment area. '
There are a number of additional components of this remedial alternative.The buildings would be demolished and the rubble spread and compacted overthe site. The contents of shipping containers currently on 120 ListerAvenue would be emptied, spread and compacted over the site. Undergroundconduits, including utility lines and sewer systems which have not alreadybeen sealed, would be located by perimeter excavation, plugged at theexterior of the site, and completely filled within the interior of the sitewith grout. Several tanks and major structural steel components would becleaned and hauled off-site for reclamation, resale, or disposal asnon-hazardous waste. A new bulkhead would be installed to increase thestability of the river bank. Drummed liquids and process wastes would bestabilized and immobilized. A monitoring program would be established andmaintained.
The underlying design principle of this alternative is to substantiallyreduce the movement of chemical contaminants, especially dioxin and DDT, bycontainment of the waste. The site geologic and hydrogeologic conditionscoupled with the geochemical characteristics of dioxin and DDT make thisalternative a possible remedial option for the containment of these
830520032
- 27 -
Table !_
Remedial Alternatives
Alternative 1 - NO ACTION
Alternative 2 - Slurry wall and Cap - Demolition ofstructures, decontamination, grading, andin-situ containment of all waste with aslurry wall and cap.
Alternative 3 -» Slurry wall and Cap, Groundwatertreatment - Demolition of structures,decontamination, grading, and in-situcontainment of all waste with a slurrywall and cap, with continued pumping andtreatment of the groundwater.
Alternative 4 - Excavation and On-Site Thermal Treatment -»Demolition of structures, decontamination,grading, excavation, on-site treatmentgroundwater, and thermal treatment of allsite wastes and soils containing dioxinabove 7 ppb with in-situ containment ofthe remaining site soilsmaterials with a slurry wall
of i
and treatedand cap.
Alternative 5 - Excavation and On^Site Vault * Demolitiondecontamination, grading,
treatment ofof structures,excavation,groundwaterall site wastesdioxin above 7containment of theslurry wall and the
on^site >, •.«*••...••_•*>.and vault encapsulation
and .soils ' 'ppb withremainingvault.
ofcontaining
in-situsoils with a
Alternative 6A - Excavation and Off-*Site DisposalDemolition of structures, decontamination,grading, excavation, on^site treatment ofgroundwater, and hauling of waste andsoils containing dioxin above 7 ppb to anoff-site facility for landfill disposal;soils remaining with dioxin levels below 7ppb would be contained by a slurry wall.
Alternative 6B - decontamination,Demolition of structures,grading, excavation, on-site treatment ofgroundwater, and hauling of waste andsoils containing dioxin aboveoff-site facility fortreatment."Soils remaining with dioxinlevels below 7 ppb would be contained by aslurry wall..
waste7 ppb to an
"thermal
830520033
e> wc o-« ua28o c
.•4 i>
«
C9
—C
C
e £•a
cU
9BU »H
ou
COCM
"I
oo« c
•> a•M
Ka•uOo •
au
0o.•4JJ«c
o8f-
in
-H
<N
<o
»
.«»>
VO
1C
<-t «H
N
(M
M
ft C
M
i-( .-I
«O
te
«» «•
to- c»
vy <o
*>o
« •
«• O
O
O
10
8O
O
«N
00
VD
»
in w
<e
fH
» «
ve m
ft
* •
* C
D.
. »
«o
v
ON
eoIN
eo 9>
^ >H
m
fH
0> <ft
«> «>
iO
<» «>
§o
5
5
5
op
• •
» m
O
O
» «•»
«H«.
• w
in
in -
§«O
•»>
fH
IN
IO
M
fH
O
• «
• C
M«o
i*- in
o «o
«n>
»
. r»
(N
V
O
T*
ffi
ff>
»
*
1
O«e
«• «
o O
O
O
§•
» «e
m
in
MO
9>
O
D
O
•* O
• <H
\o
o
m
fH
•
O
^ »••
• »
» m
oo *
» »
m
vo IN
n
«e
«
in
fH
v
CM
v> o>
«> o>
to- <»
to-
«e v\
N
off>
t—
r- co
O eo
fM
»»
•• >
r-O
«o
>4 «
10 •-<
in «N
<H CM
«•»
» m
830520034
- 29 - 830520035
v
2<recIT00
isC ;
35
•CD
c
13 FIRE LANE(TYP.J ALLAROUND SITE
AFPftOXIMATe TOPOF SLOPE IL. 14.6
V A C C E S S•OATC/ - « 0 A 0
^ t/n'/rr ^ ._JT»H "^
NEW•ULKHCAO
ONAIMA6ETKEMCH
rf.net ITT*)
LIMIT OP SITt •OUND4NYAND CAP
NOTE'THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL AND THEDETAILS OF THE DESIGN WILL BEFINALIZED PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION.
1W4 IT CORPORATIONALL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED
FIGURE 5
CONCEPTUAL S ITE PLANALTERNATIVES 2 8 4
•0 LISTER AVENUEPREPARED FOR
DIAMOND SHAMROCKDALLAS,TEXAS
... Creating a Safer Tomorrow"Do Not Scale Tr>n Drawing '
io
o««.««»»om.i..ii
T>*Z. I .p.... in t.m
—n—
raa r riii ««..o I
1 $H ji8
1°S
830520036
- 31 -
contaminants on site. A low-permeability silt layer with an averagethickness of about nine feet underlies the fill and mitigates the downwardmigration of the chemical constituents. Furthermore, dioxin is stronglyabsorbed by media with organic and clay content (such as the silt layer) andits rate of migration in such media would be greatly retarded. The behaviorof DDT in the silt layer would be similar. Therefore, the silt layerprovides a natural barrier to mitigate downward migration of dioxin andDDT- Testing indicated that the permeability of the silt is approximately10 centimeters per second (cm/sec).
The slurry wall would provide a lateral barrier and, with the cap, wouldencapsulate the wastes. The slurry wall, would be constructed of clay andbentonite and have a permeability of 10 cm/sec or less. The cap, whichwould include a layer of compacted clay (permeability of 10 cm/sec) anda nearly impermeable synthetic membrane liner, would virtually eliminatedownward seepage of surface water into the contained volume.
After installation of Alternative 2, the RCRA cap would adequately controlthe risks resulting from direct on-site contact and from airborne migrationof hazardous substances. The risk of further contamination of the PassafcRiver by the site would also be adequately controlled. Surface runoff fromthe site to the Passiac River would be uncontaminated because the cap willeliminate stormwater contact with hazardous substances. Downward migrationof contaminated ground water through the silt layer to deeper aquifers woufdcontinue but would be reduced with time as the water level within thecontained volume is gradually lowered by the downward flow. Eventually therate of downward groundwater migration through the silt layer would bereduced to the rate of water infiltration through the nearly impermeable capand slurry wall. When this condition occurs, the flow of groundwaterthrough the slurry wall will be into the contained volume due to the loweredwater level within the contained volume. Therefore, there would be nomigration of groundwater from the contained volume through the fill layer tothe Passaic River. Alternative 2 should assure substantial protection 6fhuman health and the environment, although it would allow some continuedrelease of hazardous substances to the groundwater.
Alternative 2 does not involve substantial treatment of hazardoussubstances, although the drummed process wastes would be treated to reducethe mobility of hazardous substances prior to the burial of these wastes.Therefore, Alternative 2 does not satisfy the preference for treatmentexpressed in Section 121(b) of CERCLA.
Alternative 2 would require minimal routine operation and maintenanceactivities. The cap would need to be inspected for erosion or cracking andrepairs made as needed. . However, with the passage of time the permeabilityof the cap and slurry wall may increase due to deterioration of materialswith age or as a result of chemical attack. This condition would not resultin a sudden failure of the remedy but to a gradual reduction ineffectiveness. Should monitoring show this to be the case, repairs could bemade such as installation of another slurry wall or reconstruction of thecap. Alternatively, a different remedy could be implemented at that time.
Alternative 2 would not comply with the land disposal ban of Section 3004(e)of RCRA and the associated regulations (40 CFR Sec. 268.31 - see page 40642of the November 7, 1986 Federal Register), which prohibit the land disposalof listed dioxin wastes after November 8, 1988. Alternative 2 would alsonot comply with the RCRA standards for landfill design (see 40 CFR Part 264,
830520037
- 32 -Subpart N) which require a double liner and double leachate collectionsystem. The landfill proposed in Alternative 2 for disposal of storedwastes and demolition debris has no bottom liners or leachate collectionsystems.
With the exception of the no action alternative, Alternative 2 is the leastcostly of the alternatives. This would be the case even if it is assumedthat the remedial alternatives involving containment would have to beperiodically reconstructed to maintain their effectiveness. It can also beimplemented quickly (construction would take approximately 2 years) and iswithout any anticipated implementation problems.
Alternative 3 - On-Site Containment with Cap. Slurry Wall, and GroundwaterPumping and Treatment
This alternative is similar to Alternative 2 except that purge wells wouldbe installed in the containment area to pump ground water for treatment. Awastewater treatment plant would be constructed on-site to treat the pumpedground water prior to discharging it either to the Passaic River or to th«local publicly owned treatment works. The conceptual design for thisalternative is shown in Figures 7 and 8.
After installation of Alternative 3, the RCRA cap would adequately controlthe risks resulting from direct on-site contact and from airborne migrationof hazardous substances. The risk of further contamination of the PassaicRiver by the site would be greatly reduced. Surface runoff from the site tothe Passaic River would be uncontaminated because the cap will eliminatestormwater contact with hazardous substances. The pumping of groundwaterwould lower the water level in the contained volume toward the top of thesilt layer. Since the water table within the contained volume would then belower than the water table outside the slurry wall, any lateral migration ofgroundwater through the slurry wall would be into the contained volume.Because the potentiometric surface of the sand unit below the silt layer is£on the average, two feet above the top of the silt layer, the groundwaterpumping would cause an upward flow of groundwater from the sand unitthrough the silt layer into the contained volume. This would virtuallyeliminate releases from the contained volume to the groundwater. Therewould be a discharge of treated groundwater to the Passaic River as a resultof the implementation of this remedy. The treatment system would bedesigned to meet the effluent limitations specified In Section VIII of thisROD. As described in Section VIII, the level of treatment provided toachieve these effluent limitations will result in adequate protection of thePassaic River. Therefore, Alternative 3 would assure protection of humanhealth and the environment.
Alternative 3 does not rely primarily on the treatment of hazardoussubstances, although some treatment would be required. Specifically, thedrummed process wastes would be treated to reduce the mobility of hazardoussubstances prior to the burial of these wastes and the pumped .groundwaterwould be treated to achieve the effluent limitations specified in SectionVIII. Therefore, Alternative 3 does not fully satisfy the preference fortreatment expressed in Section 121(b) of CERCLA.
Alternative 3 would require operation and maintenance of the groundwaterpumping and treatment system for the foreseeable future. In addition, thecap would need to be inspected for erosion or cracking and repairs made asneeded. However, with the passage of time, the permeability of the cap and
830520038
- 33 -
u>
CJK)oo10CO
DZ•• P
2j
ftCD
<£
—TREATMENT PLANT ftUILDINGAND CONTROL ROOM
TREATED WATERDISCHARGE LINE
PURGEWELL NO I
PURGE•ELL NO
PURSEWELL NO, •EXISTING
BULKHEADAPPROXIMATE TOP OFCONTAINMENT EL. 15.0
19'FIME LANEtTY P.) ALLAROUND SITE
PURGtWELL NO. •
PURGEWELL NO. S
APPROXIMATE TOPOF SLOPE EL. I4.»
c e s sR O A D
——DRAINAGETHENCH
NEW•ULKHEAD
FENCE ITTP.)
LIMIT OF SITE •OUHDARTAND CAP
NOTE;THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL AND THEDETAILS OF THE D E S I G N W I L LBE FINALIZED PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION.
! 19M IT CORPORATIONALL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED"Do Not Scale Thn Drawing
FIGURE 7C O N C E P T U A L SITE. FLAN
ALTERNATIVE 300 LISTER AVENUE
PREPARED FOR
DIAMOND SHAMROCKDALLAS,TEXAS
... Creating a Safer Tomorrow
830520039
- 34 -
*,
00cooenrooo
CAP pffOPCftrr LINE
YAROGRAOtEL.60
LINER ANDFILTER FABRIC
TNII CMWI MCTION II CONCEPTUAL AMDTHE OCTAILI OF THE DCIIfN WILL IEFINALIZED PHION TO IMPLEMENTATION.
FIGURE 8CONCEPTUAL CROSS SECTION
LOOKINO EASTALTERNATIVE 3
•O LUTE* AVENUE
DIAMOND SHAMROCKDALLAS, TEXAS
'*»-. '.i -,,»,' .h1
| • IM4 IT COMCMATIONAll CO^VMIGHrSIIESCAVfO
03
- 35 -
slurry wall may increase due to deterioration of materials with age or as aresult of chemical attack. This would gradually result in greater influx ofgroundwater into the contained volume and greater flow of groundwater to thetreatment system. Since the treatment system would be designed toaccommodate increased flows and still achieve the required effluentlimitations, the effectiveness of the remedy would be maintained (althoughoperating costs would increase with greater volumes of water beingtreated). Should a significant increase in groundwater influx occur,repairs could be made such as installation of another slurry wall orreconstruction of the cap. Alternatively, a different remedy could beimplemented at that time.
Alternative 3 would not comply with the land disposal ban of Section 3004(e)of RCRA and the associated regulations (40 CFR Sec. 268.31 - see page 40642of the November 7, 1986 Federal Register), which prohibit the land disposalof listed dioxin wastes after November 8, 1988. Alternative 3 would alsonot comply with the RCRA standards for landfill design (see 40 CFR Part 264,Subpart N) which require a double-liner and double leachate collectionsystems. The containment system proposed in Alternative 3 for disposal ofstored wastes, demolition debris and wastewater treatment sludge has mpbottom liner and only a single leachate collection system.
Alternative 3, while more costly than Alternative 1 and 2, is less costlythan the other alternatives considered. This would be the case even if ftis assumed that the remedial alternatives involving containment would haveto be periodically reconstructed to maintain their effectiveness. It canalso be implemented quickly (construction would take approximately 2 years)and is without any anticipated implementation problems.
Alternative 4 - Excavation and On-Site Thermal Treatment of Waste
This alternative includes the excavation and on-site thermal treatment ofall soils and site waste containing dioxin above 7ppb (Figures 5 and 9}.This includes building rubble, contents of shipping containers, excavatedsoil and buried piling, and other miscellaneous site waste. Several tanksand major structural steel components from the on-site buildings would becleaned and either disposed of off-site as non-hazardous waste orsalvaged. Crushing/grinding would be required to reduce debris to a sizesuitable for treatment. A slurry wall would be installed prior toexcavation. The thermally treated material would be placed back onto thesite and a cap meeting RCRA requirements would be constructed over thetreated material. A new bulkhead would be installed to increase thestability of the river bank and a monitoring program would be establishedand maintained during the post-implementation period. To implement thisalternative, the fill and underlying sand unit would be dewatered and theresulting wastewater treated during remediation.
To clean the site to a 7 ppb dioxin level, most of the fill above the siltlayer must be excavated. To dewater the excavation, the slurry wall wouldextend at least to the silt layer. The slurry wall may be required toextend to rock adjacent to the river to reduce inflow of ground water. Theslurry wall would reduce the horizontal ground water flow into theexcavation pit. However, because of the high potentiometric surface in theglacio-fluvial sand unit, especially adjacent to the Passaic River, theremoval of the fill material, without adequate control, would be expected tocause disturbance (heave) of the silt layer. This phenomenon will affectthe integrity of the silt layer which has been acting as a barrier against
830520041
oo
,;<*•'",,i'rhi ..i
- 36 -
<l
PROPERTYAND FENCE
DRAINAGETRENCHDRAIN WITHFLAP VALVE
J VW'-O"* EXC.WATION\' VC. ./_x/vx/Vx/i»/-</-vA VC» > ;vi.-,v;v>.-,v:vi oo
FILTER FABRICAND CUSHION
YARDGRADEEL 80
LINER ANDFILTER FABRIC
nor i;TMH cnoti section n coNccrnML MOTNC Ott«lLi OTTHC MtMN *IU MFIHALIIED ffHOM TO TM(IMPLEMCHTATION.
FIGURE 9CONCEPTUAL CROSS SECTION
LOOKING EASTALTERNATIVE 4
•O Ll»tt« •VCNUC00cooenroooro
• IW4 It COH*OHAtlON
DIAMOND SHAMROCKDALLAS, TEXAS
. Q«<rtlD0 o S«l»i Twin*!*"
- 37 -
the downward migration of the dioxin. To control this phenomenon, thepotentiometric head within the glacio-fluvial sand unit must be loweredbelow the level of the silt layer. This would require extensive dewateringof the sand unit and treatment of the pumped groundwater prior to discharge.
After excavation of the fill to the 7 ppb dioxin level, dioxin and DDT wouldstill be present in the silt layer and ground water seeping into the sandunit would still contain these chemicals. The downward seepage would besimilar to Alternative 2, although the mass of dioxin and DDT would besubstantially less than Alternatives 2 because of the treatment of the filllayer.
The highest ranking method of thermal treatment indicated in the FeasibilityStudy is a mobile incinerator. Mobile thermal treatment systems have beenused successfully to treat dioxin wastes, the most notable example being theuse of the EPA mobile incinerator at the Denny Farm Superfund Site inMissouri. Pilot scale mobile thermal treatment systems developed by J.M.Huber Corp. and Shirco Infrared Systems, Inc. have also been successfullytested on small quantities of dioxin wastes. Larger versions of the Huberand Shirco mobile systems have been constructed but have not been tested ondioxin wastes. In addition, a number of other companies have developedmobile thermal treatment systems in the last few years. Although thes'esystems have not been tested on dioxin wastes, most of these systems arepotentially applicable to treating the type of waste found at the DiamondShamrock Site. Because these mobile thermal treatment systems are newlydeveloped, there is little data available on the performance of many ofthese units and on their reliability for extended periods of operation.
The EPA mobile incinerator is the largest mobile unit tested on dioxin wasteand the only one which has burned dioxin waste over an extended period oftime. The unit has demonstrated that it can achieve the required 99.9999%destruction and removal efficiency for dioxin. However, the unitexperienced operating problems at Denny Farm which required that it be shutdown for repair and maintenance more than half of the time. The EPA mobileincinerator was recently modified to correct past operating problems.However, the modified unit had not been used to burn dioxin wastes as ofJuly 1987. Another trial burn at Denny Farm is planned for the modifiedunit.
The use of a single mobile incinerator like the EPA unit, operating at therate achieved at Denny Farm (about 12 tons per day), would take about 20years to burn the amount of waste present at the Diamond Shamrock Site.Although a number of these units could be constructed, brought to the siteand operated simultaneously, there would be difficulty in locating a largenumber of small incinerators on a relatively small site. It also would notbe cost effective to use small incinerators for a large project. Therefore,it would be preferable to use one or two larger thermal treatment units,although such units have not yet been tested on dioxin waste. Since one ormore mobile thermal treatment unit may have to be designed, constructed, andtested prior to operation to clean up the Diamond Shamrock Site, it isexpected to take at least six years to complete this remedy.
For thermal treatment to be considered fully successful, the treatment wouldneed to be sufficient to allow delisting of the treated materials ashazardous wastes. If thermal treatment does not allow delisting of thetreated waste, the treated waste may have to be managed in a more protectivemanner than described above.
830520043
- 38 -
After implementation of Alternative 4, the quantity of hazardous substancesremaining at the site would be greatly reduced as a result of the thermaltreatment of wastes. There would, however, be some remaining hazardoussubstances in the treated waste and in the silt layer. If necessary, moreprotective variations of Alternative 4 could be selected (e.g. adding agroundwater pumping and treatment system similar to the one described inAlternative 3, off-site disposal of the treated waste). Once Alternative 4,(with any more protective variations needed) has been implemented, furtherreleases from the site would not significantly affect health or theenvironment. However, there would continue to be significant releases ofhazardous substances during the period of time prior to the completeimplementation of this remedy. The remedy will require an estimated sixyears to implement because of the need for a detailed incinerator design, atest burn, major excavation activities, the time required to treat more than70,000 cubic yards of waste material, and the final disposition and cappingof the treated materials. During the period of implementation the releasesfrom the site will vary depending on the status of the remedial activities.
During the design phase there would be a continuation of the currentreleases from the site. During the excavation activities dusts and volatilechemicals would be released to the air. There would also be a discharge oltreated groundwater resulting from groundwater pumping during the remedialactivities. Lastly, there will be emissions from the incinerator stack. _
-»-
Because the incinerator would be designed to achieve the RCRA standards forincinerators (see 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart 0), the air emissions from theincinerator will contain very low concentrations of hazardous substances.For example, the standards require 99.9999 percent destruction and removalefficiency for dioxin. As a result, the air emissions from the incineratorwould release less than 0.0001 Ibs (0.05 g) of dioxin during the entireperiod of operation. Although a large population would be exposed to theincinerator emissions, the level of treatment required would provideadequate protection of health and the environment. *-
As previously discussed for Alternative 3, a high level of treatment can b«provided for groundwater pumped from the site. While quantities of treatedgroundwater would be much greater during the implementation of Alternative 4than for Alternative 3, proper design and the operation of the treatmentfacilities would provide adequate protection of the Passaic River.
The most significant releases expected from the implementation ofAlternative 4 would be the air emissions resulting from the excavationactivities. These emissions would result both from dust generation and fromvolatilization of chemicals exposed to air. A risk assessment performed byan EPA contractor for another site with high dioxin concentrations (Risksfrom Chemical Releases Associated with Proposed Excavation of the Hyde ParkLandfill. Environ Corporation, November 1985) concluded that dioxincontaminated dusts generated from the proposed excavation would result incancer risks greater than 10 at properties as far as 1200 .meters fromthat site. While this assessment assumed conventional dust suppressionmethods, alternatives such as construction under an inflatable dome have notbeen demonstrated at hazardous waste sites. In the absence of newinformation, the remedial alternatives involving excavation of the filllayer cannot be determined to be adequately protective of health and theenvironment.
830520044
- 39 -
Alternative 4 requires minimal operation and maintenance once it has beenimplemented. The cap will need to be maintained and the site monitored.
Alternative 4 would, upon completion, comply with all applicable or relevantand appropriate requirements (ARARs) of State and Federal environmental laws.
Alternative 4, with a present value cost estimate of $46,600,000 is morecostly than the alternatives based on on-site containment.
Alternative 5 - Excavation and Disposal of All Waste Above 7 ppb in aSecure On-Site Isolation Vault
This alternative includes the excavation of all soil containing dioxin above7 ppb and disposing of this soil in an on-site, above grade vault (Figures10 and 11).
The difficulties associated with excavation discussed for Alternative 4apply to this alternative also. The vault would be constructed so that thebottom of the vault is one foot above the 100-year flood level (Elevation10.2 feet). A lateral barrier (slurry wall) would be constructed along th$site perimeter.
The construction of a slurry wall would be necessary to reduce the volume ofwater infiltrating during excavation and requiring treatment. In addition,the sand unit would be dewatered to reduce the piezometric pressures in theglaciofluvial sand to minimize potential disturbance of the silt layer.
On-site contaminated building demolition material, material stored incontainers, and other site wastes would also be disposed of in the vault.Some tanks and major structural steel components would be decontaminated andeither disposed of off-site as non-hazardous waste or salvaged. The vaultwould be lined (top, sides, and bottom) to meet RCRA requirements.
^Clean fill would be purchased and placed in the excavation to return theexcavated fill layer to existing ground surface. Because excavation wouldproceed to the 7 ppb level in the fill and dioxin is present in the siltlayer, ground water seeping from the site will still contain dioxin, but «|treduced levels from present conditions. The excavation, stockpiling, andbackfilling would need to be finished before the vault could be complete;therefore, this alternative is extremely difficult, if at all feasible, dueto the limited size of the site and the fact that the vault would beexpected to cover most of the site. •
To raise the vault above the 100-year flood elevation, an additional 4.5feet of soil would be required above the existing grade. Coupled with theexcavation backfilling, this represents the purchase and hauling ofapproximately 77,000 cubic yards of clean fill.
After implementation of Alternative 5, nearly all of the hazardoussubstances at the Site would be contained within the vault. However, somehazardous substances would remain in the silt layer. More protectivevariations of Alternative 5 could also be selected (e.g., adding agroundwater pumping and treatment system similar to the one described inAlternative 3). Portions of this remedy (e.g., the cap, landfill bottomliners, etc.) may gradually deteriorate with the passage of time. Asdiscussed for Alternative 3, portions of the remedy such as the cap may needto be rebuilt or replaced periodically to maintain the effectiveness of this
830520045
<r
800>cr
_: M!§32
s
c•n
LANE( T Y P ) ALLABOUND SITE
\— EXISTINGBULKHEAD APPROXIMATE TOP OP
VAULT EL.BI.a
SLURRY WALL
APPROXIMATE TOPOP ILOPE CL. tl.t
I'l SLOPE ITtP.)
RAINAGETRENCH
— rtNCtlTYP.)NEW.
•ULKHEAO
>-LIMIT OP SITE tOUNOANYAND CAP
NOTEtTHIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL AND THEDETAILS OF THE DESIGN WILL BEF I N A L I Z E D PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION.
1W4 IT CORPORATIONALL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED"Do Not Scut Thu Drawing"
FIGURE 10 •
CONCEPTUAL S I T E PLANALTERNATIVE 5
•0 LISTER A V E N U EPREPARED FOR
DIAMOND SHAMROCKDALLAS, TEXAS
... Cr*atino a Safer Tomorrow••••••••••••••1 •••
830520046
ooto•
If
H5 3
00COoenrooo4*.
I toom HOOPci.iai
^ " C L . « 0
PASSAIC RIVCR
SLURRY WALL
EXISTING BULKHEAD
NEW BULKHEAD
rCAP
"X/-FILTER FABRIC 7/ AND CUSHION
SILT LAYER
•QTIiTHIS MOM MCTION It OONCCPTUM. MOTNC OCTAILS OF TMl KSI«H OILLriNALIZCO PMION TO TNC MFltMf NTATION.
•SLURRYWALL
FIGURE 11CONCEPTUAL CROSS SECTION
LOOKING EASTALTERNATIVE 9
•0 L ISTCf t AVCHUC
DIAMOND SHAMROCKDALLAS, TEXAS
• I1M IT COMMMUTMM
- 42 -
remedy. Once Alternative 5 (with protective modifications as needed) hasbeen implemented, further releases from the site would not significantlyaffect health or the environment, provided that the remedy is properlyoperated and maintained.
Similar to Alternative 4, there will be continued releases of hazardoussubstances during the period of remedy implementation. There would becontinuation of current releases during the design phase. The period fordesign is likely to be lengthy considering the construction difficultiespreviously noted. These difficulties could be reduced if an off-sitestorage area can be found where the materials to be contained can be storedduring excavation and vault construction. However, the siting of such astorage area may not be possible given the storage restriction of Section3004(j) of RCRA in conjunction with the likelyhood of opposition from thecommunity near any storage site.
Air emissions resulting from excavation activities would be similar to thosedescribed for Alternative 4, as would the discharge of treated ground waterresulting from ground water pumping.
Alternative 5 will not rely primarily on treatment although some waste*would be stabilized prior to containment and leachate from the vault wouldbe treated. Therefore, this alternative does not satisfy the treatmentpreference of CERCLA Section 121(b). '-
Alternative 5 will require continued operation and maintenance including thepossible need to rebuild portions of the remedy should they deteriorate withtime. Wastewater treatment needs for Alternative 5 would be less thanAlternative 3 since there would be less infiltration of water into thecontained volume.
Alternative 5 would not comply with the land disposal ban of RCRA Section3004(e) and the implementing regulations (40 CFR Part 268, Subpart C - sejjpage 40641 of the November 7, 1986, Federal Register). t
Alternative 5, with a cost present value of $14,180,000 is the most costlyof the on-site containment remedies but is less costly than the remedieswhich rely on thermal treatment.
Alternative 6 - Transport and Off-Site Disposal or Treatment
At present, permitted facilities do not currently exist which can acceptRCRA regulated dioxin wastes from the site. However, permitted facilitiesmay become available in the future.
The basic premise of Alternative 6 is that all materials containing dioxinlevels above 7 ppb would be excavated and transported off-site. Theshipping containers from 120 Lister Avenue would be shipped as is becausethey are presently sealed and the exteriors are not contaminated. Drummedwastes would be shipped as is, or in overpack drums for existingdeteriorated drums. Building debris would be reduced to an adequate sizefor shipment and the excavated soils and subsurface debris would beshipped. The difficulties associated with excavation discussed forAlternative 4 apply to this alternative also. All shipments would be insealed carriers.
830520048
- 43-
The alternative also considers that the materials transported from the sitewould be disposed of by thermal treatment (eg. incineration) or bylandfilling. Candidate sites for determining cost and transport method wereselected on the basis of disposal or treatment facilities that would acceptmaterials containing PCBs. A facility near Houston, Texas was identifiedfor potential thermal treatment allowing transport by truck, rail, orbarge. A landfill was identified near Ernelie, Alabama which limitstransport to trucking.
The cost for the landfilling or thermal treatment of dioxin-containing wastewas assumed to be at least 30 percent greater than for PCBs. The actualcost is unknown.
Alternative 6A (Excavation with Off-site Disposal) is clearly not a viablealternative because it will be prohibited in the United States by the landdisposal ban of Section 3004(e) of RCRA and the implementing regulations (40CFR Part 268, Subpart C - see page 40641 of the November 7, 1986 FederalRegister). 40 CFR Sec. 268.31 bans the land disposal of RCRA dioxin wastesafter November 8, 1988. While CERCLA gives EPA the authority to waiveapplicable legal requirements at Superfund sites under certain conditions(see Section 121(d)(4) of CERCLA), CERCLA does not give EPA the authority towaive applicable requirements at off-site facilities. Efforts to locatetreatment and disposal sites in other countries have, thus far, beegunsuccessful. Therefore, Alternative 6A cannot be selected.
After the implementation of Alternative 6B (Excavation with Off-site ThermalTreatment), the quantity of hazardous substances remaining at the site wouldbe greatly reduced. There would still be some remaining hazardoussubstances in the silt layer. If necessary, more protective variations ofAlternative 6B could be selected (e.g. adding a groundwater pumping andtreatment system similar to that described for Alternative 3). OnceAlternative 6B (with any more protective variations needed) has beenimplemented, further releases from the site would not significantly affecthealth or the environment. -~
Compared to Alternative 4, Alternative 6B would have the advantage that asite could be selected with ample space to locate the thermal treatmentequipment and with a buffer zone separting the facility from its neighbors.As in the case of Alternative 4, there would continue to be significantreleases of hazardous substances during the time prior to the completeimplementation of this remedy. Since at the present time there are nooff-site incinerators of adequate capacity which are permitted for dioxinwastes and none with pending applications for permits, EPA must assume thatone or more off-site incinerators would have to be designed, sited,permitted and constructed in order to implement this remedy. Because ofpotential siting problems, this remedy could take longer to implement thanAlternative 4, which itself would take at least six years. Siting treatmentdisposal locations for waste from CERCLA cleanups has delayed cleanups inthe past and would be expected to be especially difficult for a dioxinincinerator. With the exception of the fact that there would be noincinerator stack emissions at the site, the releases of hazardoussubstances at the site during implementation would be similar to Alternative4.
Alternative 6B relies primarily on treatment and satisfies the preferencefor treatment of Section 121(b) of CERCLA.
830520049
- 44 -
Alternative 6B requires minimal operation and maintenance once it has beenimplemented. Continued monitoring would be required.
Alternative 6B would, upon completion, comply with all applicable orrelevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) of State and Federalenvironmental laws.
Alternative 6B is the most costly of all the alternatives with an estimatedpresent value cost of $188,460,000.
Comparison Of Alternatives
As previously noted, Alternative 1 is not protective of health and theenvironment and Alternative 6A cannot be implemented given the RCRA landdisposal ban and the lack of availability disposal facilities in otherCountries. Therefore, these alternatives will not be considered further.
Alternative 2 and 3 are similar but Alternative 3 has several advantagesover Alternative 2:
A
1. Alternative 2 would allow a continued, but reduced, release ofcontaminated ground water downward from the contained volume.Eventually, the quantity of ground water migrating downward wouldequal the quantity of water infiltrating the contained volume. ForAlternative 3, the pumping of ground water from the containedvolume would reverse the direction of ground water flow, causing aninflux of ground water into the contained volume from the lowersand unit. This ground water flow reversal would provideadditional protection of the ground water in the sand and bedrockbelow the site.
2. Alternative 3 is more reliable than Alternative 2 because th,eground water pumping system provides a backup should ttfeeffectiveness of the slurry wall and cap be reduced with time.Therefore, the effectiveness of Alternative 3 can be maintainedover time more readily than the effectiveness of Alternative 2. -.
3. The ground water pumping and treatment system of Alternative 3 willremove the more mobile hazardous substances from the containedvolume and provide appropriate treatment. Since the remaininghazardous substances will be less mobile, the quality of the groundwater in the contained volume should gradually improved with time.For Alternative 2, any improvement of ground water quality in thecontained volume would be at the expense of the downward migrationof mobile hazardous substances toward the deeper sand and bedrockaquifers, which are tapped by industrial water supply wells.
The advantages of Alternative 2 over Alternative 3 are that Alternative 2would not result in a discharge of treated wastewater to the Passaic Riverand a relatively small difference in cost. However, by meeting the cleanupstandards in Section VIII, the discharge of highly treated wastewater forAlternative 3 would be fully protective of the Passaic River.
Based on the above comparisons, Alternative 3 is preferred over Alternative2.
830520050
- 45 -
As previously discussed, Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6B each would, afterimplementation, assure adequate protection of human health and theenvironment. However, Alternative 3 can be implemented much more quicklyand would achieve its objectives much sooner than any of the other threealternatives. In addition, Alternatives 4, 5, and 6B each would involveextensive and difficult excavation activities expected to generatesignificant releases of hazardous substances to the air. The implementationof Alternative 3 would release a much smaller quantity of hazardoussubstances to the air during construction.
In the near term, it is clear that Alternative 3 presents less risk thanAlternatives 4, 5, and 6B because it will bring the site under adequatecontrol much more quickly than the other alternatives. In the long term,Alternatives 4 and 6B, which rely on thermal treatment to destroy hazardoussubstances, are more reliable than Alternatives 3 and 5 since once hazardoussubstances have been destroyed there is no further risk of their release.
However, the short term releases and exposures to hazardous substance'sresulting from the excavation of contaminated material associated with thtimplementation of Alternatives 4, 5, and 6B cannot be eliminated once theyhave occurred (i.e., once a person or the environment has been exposed tohazardous substances, it is impossible to go back in time and change thigfact; Irreparable harm may have been done). If Alternative 3 isimplemented, short-term risk will be adequately controlled and it will stillbe possible to take future actions to control long-term risks. In fact,Section 121(c) of CERCLA requires that, if a remedial action that results inany hazardous substances remaining at the site is selected, such remedialaction must be reviewed at least every five years to assure protection ofhuman health and the environment. If at the time of review, furtherremedial action is appropriate in accordance with Section 104 or 106 ofCERCLA, EPA must take or require such action. As noted previously,Alternative 3 would not fail suddenly, but may gradually become lesseffective with the passage of time. Therefore, the remedy could bereevaluated and supplemented by additional remedial action withoutappreciable damage resulting from loss of remedy effectiveness. In view ofEPA's obligation to reevaluate containment remedies under Section 121(c) ofCERCLA, Alternative 3 assures adequate long-term protection of health andthe environment, as would Alternative 5 for the same reasons. Based on thecurrently available information, EPA has determined that Alternative 3presents less risk at this time and is more protective than the otherAlternatives when both short-term and long-term risks are considered.
Additional Considerations Regarding Alternative 3
For the reasons given in the previous section of this ROD, EPA hasdetermined that Alternative 3 is more protective than the other Alternativesconsidered in the Feasibility Study. Before Alternative 3 can be selected,EPA must first take into account the factors listed in Section r21(b)(l) ofCERCLA. As summarized below, EPA has taken these factors into account:
(A) The long-term uncertainties associated with land disposal -
As previously acknowledged in this ROD, it is expected that Alternative3, which relies primarily on containment of hazardous substances, willrequire perpetual operation, maintenance, monitoring and reevaluation;and, if necessary, additional remedial action. EPA recoenizes the need
830520051
" 46~ 830520052for continued care of the site and is obligated by Section 121(c) ofCERCLA to ensure that the remedy remains protective in the long-term.
(B) The goals and requirements of RCRA -
As previously noted, Alternative 3 would not comply with the landdisposal ban of Section 3004(e) of RCRA and the associated regulations,which prohibit the land disposal of listed dioxin wastes after November8, 1988. Alternative 3 would also not comply with the RCRA standardsfor landfill design (see 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart N) which require adouble-liner and double leachate collection systems.
Section 121(d)(4)(B) of CERCLA provides that EPA may select a remedythat does not comply with all applicable or relevant and appropriaterequirements of Federal and State environmental law if compliance withall requirements will result in greater risk than alternative options.EPA has previously determined that Alternatives 4 and 6, which complywith the RCRA land disposal ban, will result in greater risk thanAlternative 3 due to the potential exposure to hazardous substance*resulting from excavation of contaminated material. Alternative 5^which would comply with RCRA landfill standards but not with the landdisposal ban, would also result in greater risk than Alternative 3. -.
Variants of Alternative 3 are also possible which would contain thewastes presently in the ground in the same manner as Alternative 3, bututilize incineration or a double-lined on-site landfill to manage thewastes presently stored at the site as well as the demolition debris.The advantage of this approach is that a solution with greaterlong-term reliability can be used for some of the waste, withoutextensive excavation and the associated risks. This approach can alsobe more consistent with RCRA requirements than Alternative 3. However,these variants would offer no significant reduction in long-term riskcompared to Alternative 3 because the wastes presently in the groundcontain a much greater quantity of hazardous substances than the storedwaste and demolition debris. Specifically, the material above groundcontains relatively low concentrations of contaminants. Removing thismaterial, while reducing the volume of waste, would remove only a smallpercentage of the mass of total contaminants. Therefore, the long termrisk would remain essentially unchanged. These variants would also bemore difficult and time consuming to implement than Alternative 3(especially if incinerator siting, design and testing is involved) andwould not bring the site under adequate control as expeditiously asAlternative 3. Therefore, Alternative 3 is preferable to thesevariants of Alternative 3.
Based on the above considerations, Alternative 3 may be selectedalthough it will not comply with the RCRA land disposal ban or RCRAlandfill design standards.
(C) The persistence, toxicity, mobility and propensities to bioaccumulatethe hazardous substances and constituents -
The extreme toxicity and propensity to bioaccumulate and persistence ofdioxin and other hazardous substance was taken into account in theremedy selection process. The fact that the hazardous substances wouldhave greatly reduced mobility under the conditions which Alternative 3would establish was also taken into account, as was the fact that
- 47-
excavation activities could greatly increase the mobility of hazardoussubstances such as dioxin, which would otherwise be relatively immobile.
(D) The short and long-term potential for adverse health effects from humanexposure -
As previously discussed, Alternative 3 presents less potential foradverse health effects at this time than all other Alternativesconsidered when both short and long-term risks of exposure areconsidered. Specifically, the potential exposure to hazardoussubstances resulting from the excavation of contaminated material whichis an essential component of Alternative 4, 5, 6A and 6B is determinedto be too great a risk at this time.
(E) Long-term maintenance costs -
The long-term maintenance costs associated with Alternative 3 arerecognized. The selection of Alternative 3 would be based on itsgreater protectiveness and not on its lower Initial cost when comparedto the other Alternatives. ?
(F) The potential for future remedial action costs if the alternativeremedial action in question were to fail - -
It is recognized that the performance of Alternative 3 coulddeteriorate with time and that costly additional remedial action may benecessary. However, the selection of Alternative 3 would be based onits greater protectiveness and not on its lower initial cost whencompared to the other Alternatives.
(G) The potential threat to human health and the environment associatedwith excavation, transportation, and redlsposal, or containment - ^
Future excavation, if required after implementation of Alternative 3,could have substantial risks. However, these risks would be no greaterthan the risks presented by the excavation activities associated witfcAlternatives 4, 5, and 6. As previously discussed, any deteriorationof performances of Alternative 3 would be gradual and could bemitigated by additional response action when the initial sign ofdeterioration (such as an increased influx of ground water into thecontained volume) is observed. The appropriate corrective action forremedy deterioration might be to rebuild the containment system ratherthan excavate. Rebuilding the containment system would involve farless risk of construction related releases than would actions involvingexcavation.
Section 121(b) of CERCLA creates a preference for remedies which utilizetreatment by ensuring that the long-term disadvantages of remedialalternatives are taken into account in the remedy selection process. Sincetreatment alternatives tend to minimize long-term disadvantages, treatmentis favored by taking these disadvantages into account. However, Section121(b) also takes short-term risks into account. Section 121(b) is notintended to establish treatment as an end in itself, but to use treatment,to the extent practicable, as a means for ensuring protection of health andthe environment. Since, for this site, the remedial alternatives which havea greater reliance on treatment are less protective than Alternative 3,Alternative 3 utilizes treatment technologies to the maximum extent
830520053
- 48 - 830520054
practicable for achieving CERCLA1s primary goal of protecting health and theenvironment.
VIII. Cleanup Standards
Section 121(d)(2) of CERCLA provides that EPA's remedial action, whenconducted on-site, must comply with applicable or relevant and appropriateenvironmental standards established under Federal and State environmentallaws except as provided by Section 121(d)(4). Such applicable or relevantand appropriate requirements sometimes will be referred to as ARARs. It isEPA's position is that on-slte response actions need comply only with thesubstantive requirements of other environmental laws, not the procedural andadministrative requirements of other environmental laws (e.g., requirementsto obtain permits, prepare environmental impact statements, prepare planningdocuments, maintain records and submit reports). However, CERCLA actionswill utilize procedural and administrative safeguards similar to thoseprovided by other environmental laws. Since ARARs may not always provide anadequate level of protection (for example, there may not be an ARAR for aparticular hazardous substance), cleanup standards may also be establishedbased on risk assessment, guidance or other available information. ^
The five tables in this section list the ARARs and other cleanup standard^which pertain to one or more remedial alternatives for the site. Table IIIlists Federal ARARs that will be attained by the selected alternative whileTable IV lists the Federal ARARs that will not be attained by the selectedalternative as well as Federal ARARs that are not pertinent to theselected remedy but are pertinent to other remedial alternatives. For eachrequirement, the tables provide a summary of the requirement, a descriptionof the legal prerequisites which make the ARAR applicable and a legalcitation which can be used to obtain further information on the ARAR.Unless otherwise specified by a footnote, each of the listed ARARs pertainsto all the remedial alternatives. Footnotes are also provided to give sitespecific Interpretations and other explanatory information. Tables V and VIprovide similar information for State ARARs. However, States ARARs that donot pertain to the selected alternative (but may pertain to otheralternatives) have not been included. Table VII lists other cleanupstandards (e.g., those based on guidance or advisories, but not onpromulgated legal requirements). In the event that there are several ARARswhich pertain to the same hazardous substances, action or circumstance, theselected alternative must attain the most stringent of these ARARs, exceptas provided by Section 121(d)(4) of CERCLA.
It should be noted that the ARAR summaries provided in Tables III through VIare abbreviated versions of promulgated legal requirements. For a morecomplete understanding of these requirements, it is necessary to refer tothe cited sources, which are too lengthy to reprint in this ROD in theirentirety. It should also be noted that where administrative requirements(e.g., the need to obtain permits or submit planning documents)- are listedin Tables III through VI, the substantive technical requirements of suchpermits or planning documents are ARARs. However, the administrativerequirements themselves are not ARARs.
Except as provided by Section 121(d)(4) of CERCLA, ARARs must be attainedupon completion of the remedial action as required by Section 121(d)(2).However, some ARARs are pertinent during the remedial action. For example,a newly installed ground water treatment facility, which could include tanksand a container storage area, generally should be designed and operated to
- 49 -
Table III
Federal ARARs That Mil1 Be Attained §£ the Selected Alternative •
Summary
Facility must be designed,operated, and maintainedto avoid washout.
Prerequisite
RCRA hazardous waste: treatment,storage, or disposal within the100 year flood plain
Citation
40 CFR 264.18(b)
Footnotes
Action to avoid adverseeffects, minimize potentialharm, restore and preservenatural and beneficialvalues.
Action will occur in a flood*,plain, I.e., lowlands andflat areas adjoining inlandand coastal waters and otherflood prone areas
Executive Order 11988,Protection of Flood-plains, 40 CFR 6 App. A
00WOCJ1roooO)en
Placement of a cap overwaste (e.g., closing a land-fill, or closing a surfaceimpoundment) requires acover designed to:
o Provide long term minimizationof migration pf liquids throughthe capped area;
o Function with minimum maintenance;
o Promote drainage and minimizeerosion or abrasion of the cover;
o Accomodate settling and subsidenceso that the cover's integrity ismaintained; and
o Have a permeability less than or equalto the permeability of any bottomliner system or natural sub-soilspresent.
Hazardous waste land disposalunit capping
40 CFR 264.310(0)
Restrict post-closure useof the property as necessaryto prevent damage to thecover .
Hazardous waste facility closure 40 CFR 264.117(c)
(ll»rt
- 50 -
Summary
Prevent run-on and run-offfrom damaging the cover
Prerequisite
Hazardous waste landfill closure
Citation
40 CFR 264.310(b)
Footnotes
Protect and maintain surveyedbenchmarks used to locatewaste cells (landfills)
Installation of final cover toprovide long*terra minimizationof infiltration.
Posf-closure care andgroundwater monitor.lng.
40 CFR 264.310(b)
40 CFR 264.310
40 CFR 264.310 3,4
00WO0110OO01o>
Install two liners or morethat prevent waste migrationinto the liner, and a bottomliner that prevents wastemigration through the liner.
Install leachate collectionsystems above and between theliners.
Construct run-on and run-offcontrol systems capable ofhandling the peak discharge ofa 25 year storm.
Control wind dispersal ofparticulates.
Prevent run-on and control andcollect run-off from a 24-«hour25«year storm.
Inspect liners and coversduring and after installation.
Inspect facility weekly andafter storms to detectmalfunction of control systems or thepresence of liquids in the leachatecollection and leak detection systems.
Maintain records of the exactlocation, dimensions, and contentsof each waste cell.
Hazardous waste currently beingplaced in a landfill
40 CFR 264.301
40 CFR 264.302
40 CFR 264.303
40 CFR 264.304
~ 51 -
Summary
Close each cell with a finalcover after the last waste hasbeen received.
No bulk or non-containerizedhazardous wastecontaining free liquids may bedisposed of in landfills.
Prerequisite Citation
40 CFR 264.310
40 CFR 264.314
Footnotes
00too0110ooUl
Containers of hazardouswaste must be:
o Maintained in good condition;
o Compatible with hazardous wasteto be stored;
o Closed during storage (exceptto add or remove waste);
Inspect container storage areasweekly for deterioration.
Place containers on a sloped,crackfree base, and protect-fromcontact with accumulated liquid.Provide containment system witha capacity of 10% of the volume ofcontainers of free liquids.Remove spilled or leaked wastein a timely manner to preventoverflow of the containment system.
Keep containers of ignitable orreactive waste at least SO feetfrom the facilities property line.
Keep incompatible materialsseparate. Separate incompatiblematerials stored near each otherby a dike or other barrier.
Hazardous waste storage incontainers
40 CFR 264.171
40 CFR 264.172
40 CFR 264.173
40 CFR 264.174
40 CFR 264.175
40 CFR 264.176
40 CFR 264.177
,'V*-''" Vl^ / i • IrtM ;•I
- 52 -
Summary Prerequisite Citation Footnotes
At closure, remove all hazardous 40 CFR 264.178 * 5waste and residues from thecontainment system, anddecontaminate or remove allcontainers, liners.
Prohibition on long-term storage after Nov. 8, 1988 40 CFR 268.SO Sstorage of listed dioxin wastes
Tanks must have sufficient shell Tanks 40 CFR 264.190 5strength (thickness), and, forclosed tanks, pressure controls, toassure that they do not collapseor rupture.
Waste must not be incompatible 40 CFR 264.191 5with the tank material unless thetank is protected by a liner orby other means. . ^
Tanks must be provided with controls 40 CFR 264.194 Sto prevent overfilling, and sufficientfreeboard maintained in opentanks to prevent overtopping bywave action or precipitation.
Inspect the following: 40 CPR 264.195 Soverfilling controls, controlequipment, monitoring data, wastelevel (for uncovered tanks), tankcondition, above»ground portionof tanks, and the areas surroundingtanks.
Repair any corrosion, crack or 40 CFR 264.196 Sleak.
At closure,,remove all hazardous 40 CFR 264.197QQ waste and hazardous waste residues^j from tanks, discharge controlO equipment, and discharge confinementOl structures.roOoen •' •.••'' • •"••'" wt.-. '• "'•»• '•00
- 53 -Summary Prerequisite Citation Footnotes
« ~~""^~"~~* "*Compliance with effluent Discharge of treatment system 40 CPR 122.44(a) 6,7limitations requiring the effluent to navigable watersapplication of best avalable (e.g. Paasaic River)technology (BAT) to controltoxic and nonconventionalpollutants and best conventionalpollutant control technology(BCT) to control conventional pollutants.
Compliance with water quality 40 CPR 122.44 (d)(2) 6,8based effluent limitations.
Discharge must be monitoredto assure compliance.Discharge will monitor:
o The mass of each pollutant 40 CPR 122.44 (1) 6
o The volume of effluent
o Frequency of dischargeand other measurements asappropriate.
Approved test methods forwaste constituents to bemonitored must be followed.Detailed requirements foranalytical procedures andquality controls are provided.
i
Pollutants that pass through the Discharge to publicly 40 CPR 403.5 6,9POTW without treatment, inter-* owned treatment works,fere with POTW operation, or con-taminate POTW sludge are prohibited.
Specific prohibitions preclude thedischarge of pollutants to POTWs
00 that:Wyi o Create a fire or explosionfO hazard in the POTW;OO o Are corrosive (pH<5.0); i ,, . „,'.•>,, ,,,,, i'.1 .<,,»,•'' >,'cn
o Are discharged at a flow rateand/or concentration that willresult in interference; and
Summary Prerequisite Citation Footnoteso Increase the temperature of waste-water entering the treatment plantthat would result in Interference,but in no case raise the POTNinfluent temperature above 104degree Fahrenheit(4O degree Celsius).
o Discharge must comply with localPOTH peetreatment program, Includ-ing POTW-specific pollutant limitationspill prevention program requirements, andreporting and monitoring requirements.
40 CFR 403.5and local POTWregulations
6,9
00WOtnroooo>o
- 55 -
Table IV
Other Federal ARARs
Table IVA Federal ARARs For Incineration
00COoenrooo0>
Summary
Analyze the waste feed.
Prerequisite
Incineration of RCRAhazardous waste
Remove all hazardous waste andresidues, including ash, scrubberwater, and scrubber sludge uponclosure.
Performance standards forincinerators:
o Achieve a destruction and removalefficiency of 99.99% for eachprincipal organic hazardousconstituent in the waste feedand 99.99991 for dioxins; and
o Reduce hydrogen chloride emissionsto 1.0 kg/hr or It of the HC1 inthe stack gases.
Monitoring of various parametersduring operation of the incineratoris required. These parameters include:
o Combustion temperature;
o Waste feed rate;
o An indicator of combustiongas velocity; and
o Carbon monoxide.
Citation
40 CFR 264.341
40 CFR 264.351
Footnotes
10
10
40 CFR 264.343
40 CFR 264.342
40 CFR 264.343
10
10
10
I f f - .
- 56 -
Table IVB Federal ARARa That Will Not Be Attained B^ the Selected Alternative
Summary Prerequisite Citation Footnotes
Treatment by Best Demonstrated Placement after Nov. B, 1988 of 4O CFR 268 (Subpart D) 3Available Treatment before listed dioxin wastesplacement.
Prohibition on land disposal 40 CFR 268 (Subpart C) 3of listed dioxin wastes.
00woOlroooo>ro
- 57 -
Footnotes for Tables III and IV
1. All alternatives require remedial action in a floodplain sincethe site is located within a floodplain. All alternatives exceptAlternative 1 can be designed to prevent washout.
2. All alternatives except Alternative 1 can be designed tominimize adverse effects from flooding. Alternative 2 through6 would all significantly restore natural and beneficial valuesof-the floodplain by reducing the risk of contact with hazardoussubstances. Changes in flooding patterns which would result fromthe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood control project for theupper Passaic River would also be factored into the remedialdes ign.
3. This ARAR pertains to Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 only.
4. The cited groundwater monitoring requirements do not pertainto this action. This action addresses only 80 and 120 ListerAvenue and is not intended to address off-site groundwatermonitoring or restoration (see Section II, Scope of this Recordof Decision).
5. This ARAR pertains to Alternatives 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 only.
6. This ARAR pertains to Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 6 only.
7. For the State of New Jersey, the authority to issue NationalPollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, which containtechnology-based effluent limitations, has been delegated bythe Federal government to the State of New Jersey. This dele-gation was based on the finding that the State requirements forsuch permits are at least as stringent as the Federal require-ments. Therefore, the attainment of the State effluentlimitation ARARs of Table V will ensure compliance with "thecorresponding Federal requirements. '-
8. Water quality based effluent limitations are established bymodeling the impact of the proposed discharge on the receivingwater. While it is not within the scope of this ROD to cleanup the existing contamination in the Passaic River or to abateother sources of pollution which are currently impacting theriver, it is within the scope of this ROD to ensure that dis-charges from the site do not contribute to violations of statewater quality standards or Federal Water Quality Criteria whichare ARARs. Therefore, water quality standards are not ARARs forthis ROD but water quality based effluent limitations are ARARs.
Federal Water Quality Criteria were developed to assist Statesin establishing State water quality standards. While the
830520063
- 58-
criteria are not applicable requirements, section 121(b)(2)(A)of CERCLA makes it clear that the Water Quality Criteria whichare relevant and appropriate are ARARs. The Water QualityCriteria can be found in the Quality Criteria for Water1986, USEPA, May 1, 1986. The criteria from this documentwhich EPA considers relevant and appropriate to the Passaic Riverare:
a) The criteria for the protection of saltwater aquaticlife.
t>) The criteria for the protection of human health fromexposure through ingestion of contaminated aquatic organisms(the Passaic River near the site is not a source of potablewater but is a potential source of aquatic organisms forhuman consumption). For carcinogens, the criteria will bebased on a level of protection corresponding to a 10~6increased cancer risk.
The relevant and appropriate criteria for dioxin, DOT and ;hexachlorobenzene and the corresponding effluent limitation 5ARARs are: ;.
Pollutant Criterion Effluent Limitation ARAR-
Dioxin 1.4 x 10"5 ng/L 1.0 x 10~8 Ibs/dayDOT 2.4 x ID'2 ng/L 1.6 x 10~5 Ibs/dayHexachlorobenzene 7.4 x 10~1 ng/L 5.4 x 10~4 Ibs/day
These effluent limitations were calculated using the formula
EL « Q x 8.33 X 10~6 x C
where EL is the effluent limitation in Ibs/day, C is the wliterquality criterion in ng/L and Q is the flow of the Passaic Riverin million gallons per day. :
This formula is based on a number of assumptions:
- Steady state behavior
- Conservative behavior of substances (e.g. no biodegrada-tion, volatilization, etc.)
- Complete mixing
- Background concentrations are zero
The flow of the Passaic River used for the calculations is89 million gallons per day, which is the seven -day averagelow flow expected once in ten years (the 7Q10 flow). Whilea number of conservative assumptions (e.g. use of the 7Q10 flow,assumption that substances behave conservatively) were made which
830520064
- 59 _
result in the calculated limitations being more protective, theassumption of zero background concentrations is not a conservativeassumption. Although dioxin has not been found in Passaic Riverwater samples taken near the site, the water quality criterionfor dioxin is below the current detection limit. Therefore,there may be non-zero background concentrations of dioxin which•have not been detected due to analytical limitations. Improvedanalytical methods are becoming available which may succeed inmeasuring very low concentrations of dioxin in Passaic Riverwater. The presence of dioxin, DOT and hexachlorobenzene inPassaic River water will be studied further and the effluentlimitation ARARs may be reconsidered based on new data thatbecomes available.
Effluent limitations based on the Federal Water Quality Criteriafor pollutants other than dioxin, DOT and hexachlorobenzene areless stringent than the State effluent limitation ARARs in TableV. X
9. An option for Alternatives 3 through 6 is to discharge thetreated wastewater to the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commision(PVSC) treatment plant instead of direct discharge to theriver. The viability of this option will depend on the PVSC'swillingness to accept this discharge for treatment.
The PVSC's Rules and Regulations Concerning Discharges to thePassaic Valley Sewerage Commisioners Treatment Works containsapplicable Federal ARARs since these rules and regulationswere developed pursuant to the requirements of the Federal CleanWater Act. These rules and regulations are available for reviewin the administrative record. In addition, the Federal pretreatmeatprogram has been delegated to the State of New Jersey based onthe finding that the State program requirements are at least asstringent as the Federal requirements. Therefore, the attainmentof the State pretreatment ARARs in Table V will also ensure thatthe corresponding Federal pretreatment requirements are attained.
The PVSC treatment plant is designed to treat conventional pollut-ants as well certain as toxic and non-conventional pollutants.For dioxin, DOT, and hexachlorobenzene, which are not specificallyaddressed by the PVSC rules and regulations, the direct dischargewater quality criteria based effluent limitations will beconsidered relevant and appropriate to the pretreated effluent.
10. This ARAR pertains to Alternatives IV and VIB only.
830520065
- 60 -
Requirement Summary
Table V
New Jersey State ARARs That Will Be Attained By^ the Selected Alternative
Prerequisite/Application Regulatory Citation
A facility located in the100 year floodplain mustbe designed, operated andmaintained to prevent washoutof any hazardous waste unlessthe owner or operator can showthat the waste can be removedsafely, before floodwatersreach the facility.
Location Standards for New HazardousWaste Facilities - Construction Withinthe 100 year floodplain
7:26«l0.3(a)l
Footnote
1,2,3
Container storage areas musthave a containment systemthat is capable of collectingand holding spills, leaks,and precipitation.
All hazardous waste andhazardous waste residues must b«removed from the containment systemat closure.
Unless the owner or operator candemonstrate that the solid wasteremoved from the containment systemat closure is not a hazardouswaste, the owner or operatot becomesa generator of hazardous waste.
Use and Management of Containers 7:26-10.4(b)l et_^ seg. 2,3
7:26-10.4(c)l
7:26-10.4(c)2
00WOOlroOOO)0>
Tanks shall have sufficient shell Tanksstrength a'nd, for closed tanks,pressure controls to ensure that theydo not rupture or collapse.
General operating requirements fortanka include the following:
,i . .<•< .. •> ,. ,,,-'o Wastes and other material that areincompatible with tank material shallnot be placed in the tank.
o The owner or operator shall use appropriatecontrols to prevent overfilling.
7:26«lO.5(b) et^ seg. 2,3
7:26nl0.5(c) et. seq.
- 61 -
Requirement Summary
Above ground storage tanks must havea containment system comparable tocontainment systems for containers.
The owner or operator shall inspectoverfilling control equipment, datagathered from monitoring devices,monitoring equipment, tank constructionmaterials, and the general condition ofareas surrounding tanks at least once a day.
At closure, remove.all hazardous waste fromtanks, discharge control equipment, anddischarge confinement structures.
Repair any leak, crack or wall thinning.
Prerequisite/Application RegulatOKy Citation
7:26*10.5(d)l et. seq.
7:26*10.5(e)l et. seq.
Footnote
7:26-,10.5(e)6(h)l
7:26«10.S(e)4
00WOU1roooo>
A groundwater monitoring System shall beestablished to prevent the contaminationof groundwater.
Cover or otherwise manage the hazardouswaste landfill so that wind dispersal ofhazardous waste is eliminated.
Ignitable, corrosive and reactive waste shallnot be placed in a hazardous waste landfillunless the waste is first treated to renderit nonignitable, noncorroaive and/ornonreactive.
Incompatible wastes shall not be placedin the same cell of a hazardous wastelandfill.
Bulk liquids, non-containerized liquids,wastes containing free liquids and acutehazardous waste shall not be placed ina hazardous waste landfill.
Liquid waste of small quantity may beplaced in a hazardous waste landfill.
All empty containers shall be crushed" '• "• *flat, shredded or reduced in volume priorto disposal.
Hazardous Haste Landfills 7:26*10.8(e) et. seq.
7:26*10.8 (e) et. aeq.
7:26*10.8 (e)8
•
7:26*10.8 (e)9
7:26*10.8(e)10
7:26-10.8(e)ll
7:26-10.8 (e)12
2,3
- 62 -
Requirement Summary
No odors shall be detectable offtsite.
Liquid wastes mixed with absorbentmaterial may be placed In a hazardouswaste landfill.
The owner or operator of a hazardouswaste landfill shall supply: a nap showingthe locations, dimensions, and depth ofeach cell, contents of each cell, and theapproximate locations of each hazardouswaste in each celL.
Liners and final covers shall be inspectedfor uniformity, damages, etc..
Prerequisite/Applteat ion Regulatory.Citation
7:26il0.8(e)17
7:26-10.8(e)20
7:26*10.8 (f) et. aeq.
Footnote
7:26*lO.8(h) et. seq.
The owner or operator shall close thehazardous waste facility in a mannerthat minimizes further maintenance andcontrols.
The owner or operator shall have a writtenclosure plan.
The closure plan shall identify the stepsnecessary to close the facility.
General Closure Requirements 7:26,9.8(b)
7:26.9.8(c)
2,3
7:26«9.8(e) et. seq.
00WOUl10OOOoo
At final closure of a hazardous wastelandfill or any cell therein, the owneror operator shall place final coverto provide longterm minimizationof migration of liquids Intothe landfI'll.
The final cover shall:
o consist of a vegegative top cover
o consist of a drainage layer
o consist of a liner system
o accomodate settling
Specific Closure Requirements
JU i
7:26*10.8(1) ejU se . 2,3
7:26*10.8(1)2
- 63 -
Requirement Sunwary Prerequisite/Application
The owner or operator shall consider as partof closure at least the following:
o the type and amount of waste
o the mobility of the waste constituents
o site location, topography, and surroundingland use
o Climate
o Characteristics of cover material
o Geologic and soils profiles
o Surface and subsurface hydrology
Regulatory Citation
7:26*10.8(1)4
Footnote
Post closure care shall continuefor 30 years after the date ofcompleting the closure.
General Post closure Requirements 7:26«9.9(a) et aeq. 2,3
A owner or operator mustestablish financial assurance.
Financial Requirements for.Facility Post Closure Care.
7:26*9.ll(a) et seq. 2,3
00WOOlroooo><£>
Maintain the functionof the final cover, continue tooperate the leachate collectionsystem, maintain and monitor theleak detection system, preventrun-on and run-off, maintain gascollection system, maintain andmonitor groundwater monitoringsystem, protect and maintain benchmarks,restrict access.
Specific Post ClosureRequirements
7s26-10.8(i)5 et seq. 2,3
- '64-
Requlrement Summary
Permits to construct andcertificate to operate requiredfor new or altered air pollutioncontrol apparatus and equipment.
Requirements for the storage,transfer and use of toxicvolatile organic substances.
Requirements for toxic substanceemissions from control apparatus.
Toxic Volatile Organic Compoundsmust be discharged from a point sourceat least 40 feet above grade andat least 20 feet higher thanthe nearest human use occupancy.
Prerequisite/Application
New or Altered Air PollutionControl Devices
Use of Listed Toxic Substances
Discharge of Toxic VolatileOrganic Substances
Regulatory*Citation
7:27*8 et. seq.
7:27»17 et. seq.7:27»16 et. seq.
7:27*17 et.seq.
7:27«17.4 et. seq.
Footnote
A permit shall be obtained forthe construction or alteration ofany structure or permanent fillalong, in, or across the channelor flood plain of any stream.
A permit must be obtained priorto the development of waterfrontupon any navigable waterway.Waterfront development means docks,wharves, piers, bulkheads, bridges,pipelines and dredging operations.
Construction within aFlood Plain
7:8.3.15 6,7
00WOO1N)OO-JO
Those persons who presentlydischarge or plan to discharge tothe surface waters of the Statemust apply for a NJPDES permitwhich grants approval for suchdischarge. Permittees currentlyholding a Federal NPDES permit areexempt but must apply for a StateNJPDES permit within sixmonths of expiration.
Discharge to SurfaceWater
7:14A*1 et. seq. 9,10,11,12
- 65 -
Requirement Summary
Persons who plan to discharge tosurface waters of the state mustfirst appy for and receive a dischargeallocation certificate which allocatesthe effluent limitations that thefacility must meet initially.
Prereguistte/Applicatton Regulatory Citation* ^ ' ———"~"
7:14Ai2.1(f)
Footnote
Those persons who presentlydischarge or plan to dischargeto the land or groundwater ofthe state must apply for a NJPDESpermit which grants approval.
Discharge to Land/Groundwater
7:14A-»1 et. seq. 13,14
Persons diverting more than100,000 gallons of water perday (70 gpm) from surface orgroundwaters shall obtain awater supply allocationpermit.
Mater Diversion 7:19 et. seq. 15,16
Certain sewer systems areprohibited from accepting newtie«ins to sewer lines.
Sewerage Facility Tie-ins 7:9*13.1 et seq. 17
Permits must be obtained forthe drilling, boring, coringor excavation of any well. Allabandoned wells must be sealed.
Hell Drilling and Sealing 7:8^3.11 18
00COO01rooo•-J
Owners or operators of new andexisting major facilities andcleanup organizations must filewith the NJDEP. Major facilitiesinclude but are not limited to anyappurtenance that is used orcapable of being used torefine, produce, store, handle,transfer, process or transportpetroleum or other hazardoussubstances.
Storage and Transfer ofPetroleum and otherHazardous Substances
7:1E e£ seq. 19
- 66 -
Footnotes for Table V
1. All New Jersey State ARARs are for the selected alternativeonly. In some cases, administrative requirements, such aspermitting requirements are cited above. Although these arenot considered ARARs, the technical requirementsassociated with the permits are. For additional specificrequirements, the reader is refered to the regulations citedbelow.
2. Statutory citation: N.J.S.A. 13:1E*1 et seq.. Also known asthe Solid Waste Management Act.
3. Additional specific requirements may be found at N.J.A.C.7:26*1 et seq. 5• • tf
«4. Statutory citation: N.J.S.A. 26:2C-»9.2 et seq.. Also known as
the Air Pollution Control Act.
5. Additional specific requirements may be found at N.J.A.C.7:27 et. seq.
6. Statutory citation: N.J.S.A. 58;16A-»50 et seq.. Also knownas the Flood Hazard Area Control Act.
7. Additional specific requirements may be found at N.J.A.C.7:8*3.5.
8. Statutory Citation: N.J.S.A. 12:5 3.
9. Statutory Citation: N.J.S.A. 58:10A-»1 et seq.. Also known asthe New Jersey Water Pollution Control Act.
10. Additional specific requirements may be found at N.J.A.C.7:14A*1 et seq.
11. NJPOES Toxic Effluent Limitations for discharge to thesurface waters of the State of New Jersey * N.J.A.C. 7:14A-j1 et. seq., Appendix F. These limitations are promulgatedregulations for the discharge of toxic substances to surfacewater. The regulation outlines the criteria for developingthe chemical specific limitations listed below. Theselimitations are therefore applicable. Where two numbersappear in the column, the limitation on the left indicates amaximum weekly limitation, with the number on the rightindicating a monthly limitation.
BASE/NEUTRAL-ACID EXTRACTABLES NJPDES Toxic EffluentLimitation (ug/1)
2,4,6+»Trichlorophenol 115/2602*Chlorophenol 35/125 8305200722,4*Dichlorophenol 23/150Phenol 17/40
- 67 -
BASE/NEUTRAL-ACID EXTRACTABLEScontinued
NJPDES Toxic EffluentLimitation (ug/1)
Benzole Acid2#Methylphenol4*Methylphenol2,4,5<TrichlorophenolAcenaphthenel,2,4«TrichlorobenzeneHexachlorobenzene2-*Chloronaphthalene1,2-tDichlorobenzene1, 3#Dichlorobenzenel,4*DichlorobenzeneFluorantheneNaphthaleneBis(2^ethylhexyl)phthalateDi*»N*butylphthalateBenzo(a)anthraceneAnthraceneFluorenePhenanthrenePyreneBenzyl alcohol2<*Methylnaphthalene
VOLATILE ORGANICS
BenzeneChlorobenzene1,2*Dichloroethane1,1,l«Tr ichloroethane1,l^DichloroethaneChloroform1,l*Dichloroethenetransnl, 2-»DichloretheneEthylbenzeneMethylene ChlorideTetrachloroetheneTolueneTrichloroetheneVinyl ChlorideAcetone2tButanoneCarbon Disulfide4aMethyl-2^pentanoneTotal xylenes
45/9020/40
40/11025/3518/451635/105
35/105
21/5723/4530/8525/6525/6520/40
25/65430
18/3525/6525/65
830520073
830520074
- 68 -
HERBICIDES, PESTICIDES,AND PCBs
NJPDES ToxicLimitation
Effluent(ug/1)
0.00114.0
32/901500/3300
14/25420/790BMDL *
4,4«DDE4,4«DDDAlpha-endosulfan2,4fD2,4,5VT2,4*DBDinoseb (DNBP)2,3,7,8-TCDD
INORGANIC PARAMETERS
AntimonyArsenicBerylliumCadmiumChromium
CopperLeadMercuryNickelSeliniumSilverZincTotal CyanideTotal PhenolNitrate Nitrogen
OTHER PARAMETERS
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)Total Suspended SolidspH (standard units)Petroleum HydrocarbonsTotal Toxic OrganicsTotal Volatile OrganicsTotal Dissolved SolidsSuspended Particulates
* BMDL means below minimum detection limit. Minimum detectionlimit for 2,3,7,8-TCDD as defined by 40 CFR 136 is0.002 ppb.
200/30550/1155.30.01244 tri0.29 hex4.00.750.000577.1
0.12473.5
/40,00030,000/50,0006-910,000/15,000
12. Treatment of Wastewaters defines.. 11. ca line ii i. ui wastewateis •* NJAC 7:14At»l et seq., uci.x><c^limitations for discharges of toxic substances to surfacewaters. In some cases, limitations of individual compoundsare based on and similiar to NJPDES Toxic EffluentLimitations (see reference(11)). Other limitations arederived based on National Categorical Pretreatment Standards
830520075- 69 -
(40 CFR 413, 415, and 433), as required by the Clean WaterAct of 1977. Development of some chemical class limitationsare derived from Pesticide Chemicals Point SourcePretreatment Standards and Best Available Technology (BAT),which are considered appropriate and relevant.
BASE/NEUTRAL-JACID EXTRACTABLE COMPOUND Treatment of wastewater limitation (ug/1)
2,4,6«Trichlorophenol2*Chlorophenol2,4*tDichlorophenolPhenolBenzoic Acid2r»Methylphenol4*Methylphenol2,4,5*TrichlorophenolAcenaphthene1,2,4^TrichlorobenzeneHexachlorobenzene2<Chloronaphthalenel,2«Dichlorobenzenel,3*»Dichlorobenzenel,4nDichlorobenzeneFluorantheneNaphthaleneBis (2-,ethylhexyl)phthalateDi*Nt»butylphthalateBenzo(a)anthraceneAnthraceneFluorenePhenanthrenePyreneBenzyl alcohol2#Methylnaphthalene
VOLATILE ORGANICS
BenzeneChlorobenzene1,2t*D ichl or oe thane1,l,l*Trichloroethane1,IfcDichloroethaneChloroformIflaDichloroethenetrans«l,2«DichloretheneEthylbenzeneMethylene ChlorideTetrachloroetheneTolueneTrichloroetheneVinyl ChlorideAcetone
23/5023/5023/5017/40
23/50
55/130+
40/110+
18/45
21/5723/57400/1000
32/75
+
160/560
18/35
- 70 -
2«ButanoneCarbon Disulfide4fcMethyl-t2npentanoneTotal xylenes
830520076
HERBICIDES, PESTICIDES,AND PCBS
4,4-DDE4,4*DDDAlpha-endosulf an2,4*D2,4,5-T2,4fcDBDinoseb (DNBP)2,3,7,8nTCDD
INORGANIC PARAMETERS
0.012 ++0.004 ++0.0011 ++32/901500/3300790/190014/25420/7900.002 ++
1000/3000
260/690120/230360/1100400/60048/110170/360
660/2200
AntimonyArsenicBerylliumCadmiumChromiumCopperLeadMercuryNickelSeliniumSilverZincTotal CyanideTotal PhenolNitrate Nitrogen
OTHER PARAMETERS
Total Organic Carbon- (TOC)Total Suspended SolidspH (standard units)Petroleum HydrocarbonsTotal Toxic OrganicsTotal Volatile OrganicsTotal Dissolved SolidsSuspended Particulates
+ concentrations noted to be in TTO limitation.++ minimum detection limit as defined by 40 CFR 136.+++ toxic volatile organic substances. Mass limit shall be 0.1
Ib/hr for individual compounds and 0.5 Ib/hr for the sum total
13. Statutory Citation: N.J.S.A. 58:10A-1 et seq.. Also known asthe New .1<»rQ«»v Wat-«»r On! 1 n*- i rm Pnn«-rn1 a r> r
6*9100,000/150,0002,130/2,130
- 71 -
14. Additional specific requirements may be found at N.J.A.C.7:14A-»1 et seq..
15. Statutory citation: N.J.S.A. 58A:1 et seq.. Also known asthe'Water Supply Management Act.
16. Additional specific requirements may be found at N.J.A.C.7:19 et seq..
17. Statutory citation: N.J.S.A. 58:10A*1 et seq.. Also known asthe Water and Sewer Laws.
18. Statutory citation: N.J.S.A. 58:4A-14. Also known as the WellDrilling and Pump Installers Licensing Act.
19. Statutory citation: N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11 et al.. Also knownas the Spill Compensation and Control Act.
830520077
APPENDIX A
Responsiveness Summary
830520078
• RESPQNSIVENESS SUMMARY
This Responsiveness Summary is divided into two parts.Part I is the Responsiveness Summary for comments received atthe February 20, 1986 public hearing on the Feasibility Study(FS) and for written comments on the FS. Part I was preparedby the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection(NJDEP) with input from the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).
Part II is the Responsiveness Summary for comments receivedat the August 11, 1987, public meeting on the Proposed InterimRemedial Action Plan (PIRAP) and for written comments on thePIRAP. Part II was prepared jointly by EPA and NJDEP and theresponses represent the positions of both Agencies.
In both Parts I and II, similar comments from different .^persons have been consolidated to reduce the need fur Jrepetitious responses. *
830520079
Appendix A - Part I
Diamond Shamrock Site80 and 120 Lister AvenueNewark, Essex County
New Jersey
Responslveness Summaryfor the
On-Site Feasibility Study
February 1986
830520080
This community relations responsiveness summary, prepared as part ofthe Record of Decision (ROD) is divided into the following sections:
I. Background of Community Involvement and Concerns
This is a brief history of community interest in the DiamondShamrock site and a chronology of community relations activitiesconducted by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection(NJDEP) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA) prior to and during the Remedial Investigation/FeasibilityStudy (RI/FS).
II. Summary of Major Questions and Comments received during thePublic Comment Period and NJDEP's Responses
This is a summary of major questions and comments directed toNJDEP and Diamond Shamrock during the February 20, 1986 PublicHearing regarding the results of the Feasibility Study and sent tSNJDEP during the public comment period. NJDEP's responses are 5included in this section.
III. Remaining Concerns
Discussion of remaining community concerns of which NJDEP, USEPA,and Diamond Shamrock should be aware in conducting the remedialdesign and remedial actions at the Diamond Shamrock site.
Attachments
A. Agenda and Fact Sheet distributed at the 2/20/86 Public Hearing.B. List of Attendees at the 2/20/86 Public Hearing.C. List of Speakers at the 2/20/86 Public Hearing.D. Letters sent to NJDEP during the public comment period.
830520081
I. Background of Community Involvement and Concerns
The discovery of dioxin contamination at the Diamond Shamrock sitestimulated active community involvement, especially amongresidents of the Ironbound section of Newark. An organizedcitizen group, Ironbound Residents Against Toxics, is apprised ofall significant activities and included in all informal briefingsfor local officials related to the Diamond Shamrock site. Theinitiation of residential sampling and subsequent remedial actioncreated increased awareness and involvement on behalf of citizenswith respect to the activities of the New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection (NJDEP) and the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency (USEPA) at Diamond Shamrock. Onseveral occasions the Department has consulted with this groupregarding strategies for disseminating information to andcommunicating with residents regarding the sensitive issueconcerning sampling and remediation of their properties.Following is a chronology outlining community relations activities^over the past several years. -?
Chronology of Community Relations Activities
Date Event
12/82 -NJDEP released fishing advisories for reduced consumption ofWhite Catfish in the Passaic River. The River abutting 80Lister Ave. was closed for commercial fishing of AmericanEels and striped bass.
6/2/83 -Briefing with NJDEP, USEPA, and New Jersey Department ofHealth (NJDOH) for Newark officials.-Press conference during which time the Governor offeredalternate housing to affected residents.-Commissioners Hughey (NJDEP) and Goldstein (NJDOH) met withresidents in Newark. Fact sheets were distributed.
6/8/83 -Public meeting (sponsored by Mayor Gibson) with NJDEP(Tyler, Berkowitz), USEPA, NJDOH at Roosevelt HousingDevelopment.
6/10/83 -USEPA letter to residents re: dioxin sampling during weekof 6/13/83.
6/20/83 -Public meeting to discuss current findings with residents(Governor Kean).
6/83 -USEPA held several informal briefings with D. Cherot (NewarkDept. of Health and Welfare) & Staff.
-USEPA initiated numerous door-to-door contacts re: ongoingactivities (L. Johnson & R. Cahill).
6/3/84 -NJDEP and USEPA officials met with residents re:start of habitability sampling.
830520082
-NJDOH brought a mobile van to the Ironbound section toprovide residents with information about dioxin.-Command post with State workers set up at 17 RlverviewCourt.
6/6/84 -State officials attended a meeting at the RooseveltHousing Project.
-NJDEP and NJDOH went door-to-door to discuss residentialsampling results. The Governor and other state officialsheld a press conference in Newark and a meeting at a localtavern to discuss these results.
6/8/84 -Public meeting organized by Mayor Gibson at RooseveltHousing Project (NJDEP officials in attendance).
6/13/84 -NJDEP community relations visit and letter distribution toresidents re: stabilization and containment action at BradyIron & Metals, Inc. -J
36/18/84 -Press conference with Dr. Dewling (USEPA).
-Press event re: Federal Investigation Team (FIT)demonstration at Hayes Park East.
6/84 -NJDOH distributed fact sheets, questionnaires and addressedquestions re: health concerns in Ironbound.
8/9-11/84 -NJDEP sponsored Dioxin Public Information Open House.
1/10/85 -NJDEP letter to residents re: off-site cleanup (AGO II)and sampling activities (beginning 1/14/85).
*.
2/18/85 -NJDEP informal briefing for Newark officials and communityrepresentatives re: ACO's I & II.
3/12/85 -NJDEP meeting in Newark to discuss traffic logistics withpolice department, fire department, and emergency responsecoordinator.
3/14/85 -USEPA distribution of letters and consent forms to 17residents re: residential sampling on 3/19/85.
4/2/85 -NJDEP letter (English and Spanish) to residents re:parkway median remediation schedule on 3/19/85.
6/19/85 -NJDEP informal briefing with Newark officials and communityrepresentatives re: status of the dioxin cleanup.
8/9/85 -NJDEP hand delivered letters to residents and explainedsampling results from their property.
9/9/85 -NJDEP hand delivered letters to residents requesting theircooperation for USEPA's residential sampling duringSeptember 1985.
830520083
1/8/86 -NJDEP distribution of letters (English and Spanish) toresidents regarding January 11-16, 1986 street cleaningactivities.
2/20/86 -NJDEP Public Hearing (in Newark) to present results ofFeasibility Study and receive comments.
830520084
II. Summary of major questions/and comments received during thepublic comment period and NJDEP's responses
In December 1985, the Feasibility Study was placed in thefollowing repositories for review: Newark Public Library, 5Washington Street; Newark Public Library, 140 Van Buren Street;Newark City Clerk's Office, 920 Broad Street; and NJDEP, 432 E.State Street, Trenton. NJDEP issued press releases and contactedlocal officials, as well as community representatives regardingthe availability of the Feasibility Study at these repositories.
On February 20, 1986 NJDEP held a public hearing to present theresults of, and receive comments/questions regarding, theFeasibility Study. (See Attachment A: agenda and fact sheetdistributed at the hearing). The hearing was held at St. AloysiusTheater, 89 Fleming Avenue in Newark. In order to select the mostappropriate and accessible meeting location, St. Aloysius Theater--was chosen in consultation with Mr. Arnold Cohen (Ironbound ^Residents Against Toxics-IRAT), Mr. Michael Gordon (Attorney forIRAT), as well as local officials (E. Hill, D. Cherot, H.Martinez). Notification of the public hearing was accomplishedthrough press releases and direct mailing of notices to local,state and federal officials, as well as concerned citizens.Approximately 150 people attended although only approximately 80people signed the attendance sheet (See Attachment B), and 11people commented during the hearing (See Attachment C). Responsesto questions and comments, for the most part, were not stated atthe hearing. The public comment period was held from February 20,1986 through March 21, 1986. In addition to the comments madeduring the public hearing five letters were received by theDepartment during this period. (See Attachment D).
During the public hearing Mr. Hutton, Director of EnvironmentalAffairs for Diamond Shamrock, gave a presentation of six remedialaction alternatives that were considered in the FeasibilityStudy. These are:
1. No action;
2. In-situ slurry wall with cap;
3. Ground water pumping and treatment, with in-situ slurry walland cap;
4. Excavation with thermal treatment of materials with over 7parts per billion (ppb) dioxin coupled with in-situ slurrywall and cap;
5. Excavation and construction of an on-site landfill for thematerials with over 7 ppb dioxin coupled with a slurry walland cap; and
830520085
6. Excavation, loading, and transportation of contaminatedon-site materials and off-site commercial disposal, a slurrywall built for stability and ground water control duringexcavation, and mitigation of migration of remaining dioxinbelow the 7 ppb level after remediation.
Mr. Hutton then discussed Diamond Shamrock's proposed remedialalternative which includes a ground water pumping and treatmentsystem, in-situ slurry wall, and capping.
Following is a summary, organized by subject, of all majorquestions/comments received by NJDEP at the public hearing andduring the comment period. Major subjects include:
* Permanent Removal;
* Efforts to Secure an Off-Site Disposal Facility;
* Development of a Licensed Dioxin Disposal Facility;
* Adequacy of Proposed Site Cleanup;
* Consideration of Technologies for Safe Excavation;
* Applicability of State Laws for Hazardous Site Remediation;
* Long-Term Site Maintenance;
* Containment Option;
* Proposed Alternative Vis a Vis the Passaic River; and
* Other Issues.
830520086
Permanent Removal
The overriding and recurring theme expressed by the speakers at thehearing was that the only acceptable remedial alternatives would entailthe total removal of hazardous waste from the Diamond Shamrock site at80 and 120 Lister Avenue. Community representatives appealed to NJDEPto protect the interests of the Ironbound residents and businesses whohave already experienced the hardships and stigma associated withdioxin contamination in their neighborhood. The alternative proposedby Diamound Shamrock is perceived by some residents and others as acontinuation of the problem, rather than a remedy.
1.+ A disposal site cannot be in Essex County. Total removal isthe only acceptable option.
Response: If implemented at the present time, the total removal optionwould result in greater risk to community residents thanwould the proposed remedial action plan. The disadvantages -of the total removal alternatives are discussed below:
The option of off-site land disposal without treatment is not_a viable one. There are currently no land disposalfacilities permitted for disposal of dioxin wastes, andeffective on November 8, 1988, regulations promulgated underthe Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)will ban the land disposal and long-term storage of dioxinwastes unless the wastes meet treatment standards, which areachievable by incineration. A waiver from the land disposalban is available under the Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (Superfundlaw) authority for land disposal at the Diamond Shamrock sitebecause the alternatives which comply with the ban are lessprotective than the proposed plan. However, CERCLA does notgive authority for such a waiver for off-site disposal orstorage.
Since there are no existing off-site commercial hazardouswaste thermal treatment units of adequate capacity for thecleanup of the Diamond Shamrock site which are permitted totreat dioxin or have pending applications to treat dioxin, anoff-site thermal treatment unit would have to be designed,constructed and tested. In addition, the unit would have tobe sited, another step in the time consuming process ofimplementing this remedy. Siting treatment and disposallocations for wastes from CERCLA cleanups has delayedcleanups in the past and would be expected to be especiallydifficult for an incinerator capable of destroying dioxins.It would take at least six years and possibly much longer toimplement a remedy which relies on off-site treatment.
+ All comments and questions are numbered for the purpose of crossreferencing the text.
830520087
In addition, the excavation necessary for total removalpresents significant risks. The hazardous substances to beexcavated are far more concentrated than those substanceswhich were excavated at off-site properties. Of particularconcern would be the risk resulting from airborne releases ofhazardous substances. While it has been suggested thatexcavation could take place under a dome with the airbornehazardous substances vented through carbon filters, thistechnology has yet to be demonstrated in an applicationsimilar to its possible use at this site.
By contrast, the proposed remedial action plan can beimplemented in approximately two years with minimal risksduring implementation. The proposed plan will provideadequate protection of health and the environment much soonerthan alternatives involving total removal and it can besupplemented by additional remedial actions in the future,iffeasible.
2.+ We understand that the cleanup plan proposes to placedioxin-laden soils in a landfill on their property in thisarea. ...All landfills will eventually fail. ...Have other -treatment technologies been considered here? ...The onlyadvantage seems to be a cheap and convenient way for DiamondShamrock to dispose of these wastes. This is not in the bestinterests of the community. DEP's first priority should beto provide maximum protection of public health and theenvironment and not to make life "easy" for industry. Wehope NJDEP will not approve this proposed plan but ratherconsider cleanup options that will remove permanently,destroy or detoxify the dioxin-laden soils.
Response: Diamond Shamrock and their contractor, IT Corporation, haveconsidered the full range of potentially viable alternativesin the Feasibility Study submitted to NJDEP and USEPA inOctober of 1985. This document summarized the findingsof an extensive Remedial Investigation conducted in 1984and 1985. Both of these documents were placed in publicrepositories for review in December 1985.
The findings of the Feasibility Study indicate that treatmenttechnologies for large quantities of dioxin-contaminatedmaterials are not sufficiently developed to warrantrecommendation at this time. Additionally, there arecurrently no approved disposal facilities available to acceptthese wastes. Consequently, NJDEP is recommending securing
+ Paraphrased comment, received from Stephen Lester and Lois Gibbs.Refer to Attachment D for letter.
830520088
10
contaminated materials on site. It is the position of NJDEPthat this on-site containment is an interim solution, and isrecommended in order to stop the migration of hazardousmaterials. Provisions will be made to periodically reviewthe status of available technologies in order to conductenvironmentally safe destruction of on-site materials in thefuture.
The NJDEP believes that the proposed remedy is moreprotective of health and environment than total removal atthis time. With regard to any engineered solution,operational difficulties may develop at any time.Accordingly, sufficient provisons for proper operation andmaintenance of the remedy must be included. In accordancewith Section 121 (c) of CERCLA, additional remedial actionswould be taken should the remedy prove to be ineffective;however, NJDEP regards this as a remote possibility.
More specifically, the proposed remedy would require ~operation and maintenance of a ground water pumping andtreatment system for the forseeable future. The pumpingwould reverse the present direction of ground water flow and -would result in a net influx of groundwater into thecontained volume. In addition, the cap would be inspectedfor erosion or cracking and repairs would be made as needed.Should a significant increase in groundwater infiltrationoccur, it would immediately be detected, and repairs could bemade at that time.
Thermal treatment, which is currently the most developed andeffective of treatment alternatives, was found lessprotective than the proposed containment plan if implementedat the present time (see the response to comment #1).
3.+ I fundamentally agree with the sixth remedial alternativeconsidered (i.e., excavation, loading and transportation ofcontaminated on-site materials for off-site commercialdisposal). Since the decisions made here will be anaccommodation of existing law for any of the alternatives,... perhaps an arrangement between NJDEP and USEPA to havealready established "dioxin-qualified" out-of-state landfillsaccept our dioxin waste... until New Jersey has its ownfacility. Additionally, we both know there are ways andmeans to excavate safely without further contaminating air,water, and land, however costly to Diamond Shamrock. ++
+ Paraphrased comment received from Maria Del Tufo, R.T.. Refer toAttachment D for letter.
-H- This issue is addressed later in this Responsiveness Summary.
830520089
11
Response: There are no commercial facilities, either currently or inthe near future, available for the treatment or disposalof dioxin-contaminated wastes. We therefore believethat the only viable alternative available is to secureand contain all contaminated materials on site until anappropriate technology becomes available. There arequestions to be answered regarding safe methods ofexcavation, identify areas most likely to be impacted,and the means for addressing those potential impacts.The NJDEP is committed to a comprehensive study ofexcavation risks and a means for controlling thoserisks by requiring a feasibility study to be performedevery two years.
830520090
12
Efforts to Secure an Off-Site Disposal Facility
4.+ Diamond Shamrock has failed to comply with 7:26-1.4 by notexploring all alternatives and failing to list detailedreasons why off-site disposal is not available.
Response: Diamond Shamrock has, in fact, explored the possibility ofoff-site disposal as evidenced by the development ofAlternative No. 6 which explored the possibility of off-sitedisposal at a hypothetically approved landfill andincineration facility. This alternative has beenrejected due to the reality that there are no currentlyapproved disposal facilities available in the UnitedStates as noted in the response to comment #1. Althoughtreatment or disposal sites may become available in thefuture, we cannot predict when or if this will occur.NJDEP recognizes the need to respond to the situation asit is currently presented. In addition, it is theposition of NJDEP that all potentially viablealternatives have been investigated and evaluated byDiamond Shamrock.
5. Diamond Shamrock has failed to fulfill its obligation toprovide communications regarding the availability of off-siteoptions for disposal. The Feasibility Study does not containdocumentation of communication with hazardous waste disposalfacilities. This prevents a meaningful evaluation ofavailable alternatives. Remember NJDEP especially requestedthat this information be contained in the study back inAugust 1985.
Response: Although Diamond Shamrock did not present communicationsregarding off-site disposal options within the FeasibilityStudy, a response has been received by NJDEP subsequent tothe completion of the Feasibility Study. Although it isknown that there are no approved disposal facilities whichcan accept the TCDD-contaminated residues from the DiamondShamrock site, Diamond Shamrock's contractor, IT Corporation,made inquires at twelve facilities that accept wastescontaining PCB-contaminated residues. These disposalfacilities were selected since PCB disposal facilities wouldbe most likely to accept TCDD wastes. All indicated thatwastes containing TCDD residues would not be accepted. USEPAhas confirmed the fact that there are no commercial treatmentor disposal facilities that are permitted in the UnitedStates. This information was reviewed by NJDEP and forwardedto Michael Gordon, Esq. contaminated soils at concentrationsup to 80 ppb. Facilities such as this offer promise forfuture treatment options.
One of several comments received from Michael Gordon, Esq. Refer toAttachment D for letter.
830520091
13
6. Diamond Shamrock has not evaluated the disposal of dioxin-contaminated soil at licensed international disposal sites.
Response: NJDEP requested the evaluation of this alternative in ourresponse to the Draft Feasibility Study. Diamond Shamrock'sresponse indicates that although dioxin-contaminated soilmay be disposed of at one European facility, thepolitical and institutional constraints are such that atimely resolution would be unrealistic since thisfacility has been established for local disposalpurposes. While NJDEP recognizes the benefits that would berealized by such overseas disposal, we question severalfactors including: Diamond Shamrock's ability toparticipate in such a plan; the time that wouldundoubtedly be required for implementation; theappropriateness of such an extreme remedy in terms ofdisposing of more than 70,000 cubic yards of contaminatedmaterials; and compliance with all regulations imposedby the receiving country.
7.+ The City of Newark received correspondence from WestGermany's Department of Environmental Protection indicatingthat there is a registered landfill for dioxin-contaminatedwaste in Kassel, West Germany. Director Alvin Zach, NewarkDepartment of Engineering, urged NJDEP to require DiamondShamrock to assess this facility, as well as otherappropriate international disposal facilities.
Response: At the request of NJDEP, Diamond Shamrock has investigatedthe possibility of such disposal of dioxin-contaminatedmaterials. As indicated by the tone of the response, thefacility referred to in West Germany does not seek thedisposal of foreign TCDD-waste materials, citing politicalconstraints and local usage preference. In addition, forreasons decailed in the previous response, we question theviability and practicality of such a disposal option.
8.- Request via correspondence from Mayor Gibson that NJDEPrequire Diamond Shamrock to explore the use of USEPA's firstregistered disposal site for dioxin in the United States.The J.M. Huber Corporation in Texas was recently permitted toaccept dioxin wastes. Presuming that such a disposalfacility is available, storage of dioxin should not bepermitted in Newark.
Comment received from Director Alvin Zach. Refer to AttachmentD for letter.Comment received from Mayor Gibson. Refer to Attachment D forletter.
830520092
Response: Investigation by NJDEP technical staff has determined thatthe Texas facility referred to, at present, does not have thenecessary USEPA permit to treat dioxin. However, thisfacility may accept dioxin wastes for research and futureengineering design purposes. The inappropriateness of thisfacility is indicated by the fact that it will process amaximum of only 0.5 pound/hour, and that it is effective oncontaminated soils at concentrations up to 80 ppb.Facilities such as this offer promise for future treatmentoptions.
9. Have you tried to locate any off-site facilities where thismaterial could be temporarily stored?
Response: There are currently no facilities available in the UnitedStates that accept TCDD-contamlnated wastes for eitherstorage or disposal purposes. Section 3004(e) of theResources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) prohibits land_disposal of TCDD materials, effective November 8, 1988.Further, Section 3004 (j) of RCRA restricts storage of wastesprohibited from land disposal under most circumstances (seepages 40641 - 40643 of the November 7, 1986 Federal Register .for the specific regulations). Even if storage of thesewastes were possible, such a facility does not exist, asindicated previously.
830520093
15
Development of a Licensed Dioxin Disposal Facility
10. Diamond Shamrock has not evaluated the siting, permitting,construction, operation, and maintenance of a new dloxindisposal facility within New Jersey or anywhere else in theworld.
Response: Realistically, NJDEF recognizes the difficulties ofsiting and permitting a new hazardous waste disposal facilityfor TCDD. We also recognize the desirability of ultimatelytreating or removing the contamination from this site. Thisis why the Record of Decision (ROD) will contain provisionsfor periodically evaluating the feasibility of doing so.In addition, as described previously in the response tocomment #1, this option was evaluated and found to be lessprotective than the proposed plan.
11. Entombment only prolongs the process; it does not solve the -cleanup problem. Diamond Shamrock should be required to :
develop a licensed facility for the disposal ofdioxin-contaminated soil.
Response: It is the responsibility of NJDEP to protect human health andthe environment. It is our position that the proposed planprovides the greatest protection of all the alternatives. Inaddition, the containment alternative is considered aninterim measure until such time as the feasibility of othertreatment or disposal methods is proven.
12.
Response:
The recommended alternative does not evaluate the cost andlegal constraints of seeking to become a licensed, permitted,solid waste or hazardous waste disposal facility within NewJersey. This is what is being recommended by DiamondShamrock.
Section 121(e) of CERCLA eliminates the need for anyfederal, state and local permits for CERCLA remedialactions. In addition, Section 121(d)(4) of CERCLA allows forwaivers of the applicable or relevant and appropriaterequirements of federal and state environmental laws undercertain circumstances. The ROD will include thejustification of such waivers. Finally, this site is notconsidered to be a disposal facility in the sense that wastematerials from locations other than those originating atthe site will not be accepted.
830520094
16
Adequacy of Proposed Site Cleanup
13. Diamond Shamrock has failed to evaluate the impacts of JudgeStanton's order and opinion. These require the siteremediation to achieve the highest level of cleanup that theboundaries of our known technology will allow.
Response: Judge Stanton's order requires the cleanup "to the greatestextent feasible within the bounds of known technology."Similarly, section 121(b) of CERCLA requires the selectionof a remedy that uses permanent solutions and alternativetreatment technologies or resource recovery technologies tothe maximum extent practicable. It is the position ofNJDEP that neither Judge Stanton's order nor section121(b) of CERCLA were intended to maximize the use oftechnology as an end in itself, but as a means for ensuringthe protection of health and the environment. Since thealternatives which have a greater reliance on technology are _less protective than the proposed remedial action plan at thepresent time, the proposed plan does utilize knowntechnologies to the extent practicable or feasible forprotecting health and the environment.
14. This site produced chemicals for 63 years. There areprobably a lot more chemicals than Diamond Shamrock iswilling to deal with. Geologic and major engineeringjudgements are being made based on two chemicals (dioxin andDDT). What about the other chemicals at this site that havevery different characteristics from dioxin and DDT?
Response: The risk assessment developed by Diamond Shamrock and theircontractor, IT Corporation, evaluated risks posed by allchemicals detected in significant concentrations on site.The evaluation was less detailed for chemicals which have aminor contribution to the total risk.
15.
Response:
Diamond Shamrock has improperly developed a ground waterdecontamination program based on the chemical characteristicsof two compounds when there are a hundred compoundscontaminating the site. The likelihood of success of anyground water program must evaluate the mobility, toxicity,etc. of all compounds present above the New Jersey standardof 100 ppb being used for ground water cleanups at industrialsites. The Feasibility Study does not recognize the propercleanup goal of remediation until all contaminants are belowthe 10 ppb standard.
The recommended remedial alternative includes a ground waterpumping plan to reverse the downward flow of ground waterthrough the sand unit. The purpose of the pumping is toprevent the migration of the contaminants beneath the cap andwithin the slurry wall from moving off site. The pumped
830520095
17
ground water will then be treated to remove all contaminantsto levels appropriate for discharge to the Passaic River orto a wastewater treatment facility.
The proposed plan is not intended as a ground waterdecontamination program. It is intended only to prevent therelease of pollutants from the 80 and 120 Lister Avenueproperties to the ground water. The cleanup of all groundwater contamination attributable to the Diamond Shamrocksite is outside of the scope of the Remedial Investigationand Feasibility Study. NJDEP is committed to furtherinvestigate ground water contamination in the vicinity of 80and 120 Lister Avenue and to implement additional remedialactions, as appropriate.
New Jersey does not have a standard of 10 ppb for groundwater cleanups at industrial sites. New Jersey's interimground water criteria are established on a "per chemical"basis. For volatile organic compounds, the levelsestablished are 5 ppb for each carcinogenic compound and atotal of 50 ppb for noncarcinogenic compounds which do nothave a federal Maximum Contaminant Level. Nonvolatileorganic compounds have individual criteria that can beobtained from the Department's Division of Water Resources.It is NJDEP's plan to satisfy the requirements for effluentdischarges.
830520096
18
Consideration of Technologies for Safe Excavation
16. Diamond Shamrock has failed to evaluate the impacts of knowncleanup and construction methodologies on the optionsrequiring excavation of materials, i.e. reverse pressurewithin a covered work area. This means the evaluation ofalternatives presented is clearly misleading. DiamondShamrock relies on this misinformation to eliminate anyoptions containing excavation of soils.
Response: As indicated, excavation of contaminated materials is notconsidered to be a viable option at this time. When disposalsites or satisfactory technologies for treatment aresufficiently developed, safe excavation methods will beevaluated and implemented to the maximum extentpracticable. (See response to comments #1 and #3).
17. There are safe engineering technologies for the excavation of-contaminated soils. A structure can be built with negativepressure to draw air in rather than out, thereby reducing theemission of dioxin-contaminated particulates into theatmosphere.
Response: NJDEP is cognizant of special techniques for suchconstruction. However, there are currently no availabletreatment or disposal facilities in use in the UnitedStates for such contaminated materials. (See response tocomments II and #3).
830520097
19
Applicability of State Laws for Hazardous Site Remediation
18. Diamond Shamrock has failed to evaluate the legalrequirements applied by NJDEP to site cleanups in NewJersey. This prevents the evaluation of what laws will bebroken by the cleanup option selected by Diamond Shamrock.
Response: Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (Superfund Law)authority, which allows for an on-site remedy that doesnot attain all applicable or relevant and appropriaterequirements of federal and state laws, NJDEP is proposingimplementation of a modified version of the alternativethat was proposed by Diamond Shamrock. Furthermore,justification will be provided in the Record of Decision(ROD) under Section 121(d)(4) of CERCLA for thoserequirements which will not be met.
19. The Feasibility Study is incomplete and cannot be properlyevaluated (e.g., there is no listing/discussion of state lawsthat are applicable to the recommended alternative).
Response: Although NJDEP notes that the Feasibility Study does notdiscuss relevant state or federal regulations, it is theresponsibility of NJDEP to identify and evaluateapplicable or relevant and appropriate requirements in anyenforcement action to ensure that the selected alternative isin compliance with relevant regulations. As indicated above,the selected remedy is being implemented under CERCLAauthority, which controls the legal requirements. AlthoughCERCLA does not require obtaining permits prior to initiationof remedial activities, CERCLA does require that theseactions meet the substantive requirements of such permits.
20. Diamond Shamrock has failed to evaluate the New Jerseyrequirements for thickness and permeability of liners at newwaste disposal locations. Diamond Shamrock's reliance on thepresent silt layer is illegal.
Response: CERCLA allows for the selection of a remedy which may notmeet all requirements under the circumstances describedin Section 121(d)(4). (Refer to response for commentsand #19 for further discussion).
830520098
20
Long-Term Site Maintenance
21. Regardless of the selected remedial alternative, a long-termmonitoring program is necessary during and after the remedialwork to ensure environmental safety. The monitoring programmust provide data/information that is readily useable byofficials to assess damage to health and the environment.The monitoring program should be peer reviewed by appropriatescientists within and outside of government. The EssexCounty Office of Environmental Health is available forassistance in this regard.
Response: NJDEP has the responsibility and capabilities toestablish a long-term monitoring plan. Indeed, this is arequirement of the selected remedy. NJDEP routinelyseeks the expertise of outside health agencies, asneeded, and informs them of programs established to protectpublic health and safety. Toward this end we appreciate the_interest of the Essex County Office of Environmental Health. :
22. It is difficult to comprehend maintaining this site inperpetuity, which will ultimately happen if we do not remove -it. Diamond Shamrock will be able to abandon this site after30 years and the community will be left with theresponsibility of maintaining the site forever. What is thelongest documented experience in operating a pumping systemof this kind? This is a temporary solution to a permanentproblem.
Response: Financial assurances will be required of Diamond Shamrockfor continual maintenance of the site until such time as thecontaminants are either removed or no longer pose a threatto human health or the environment. There will be no"abandonment" of the site after 30 years, although NJDEPhopes that a permanent resolution will be realizedbefore that time. If subsequent negotiations with DiamondShamrock fail, NJDEP is committed to providing thenecessary financial assurances to implement the remedy.
Pumping systems are capable of indefinite operation.Although pieces of equipment do wear out, all that isrequired is component replacement. The same is true for manywater treatment technologies that are currently in use bywater companies throughout the state and nation, such as airstripping and activated carbon for the removal of certainorganic compounds, as well as filtration, flocculation,sedimentation, and ion exchange for other contaminants.
830520099
21
23. Presently, the law is written so that the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements for a sitecap terminate after 30 years. Diamond Shamrock can walk away"scot free" after 30 years. It is highly unlikely to operatethe proposed pumping system for 30 years. Diamond Shamrockplans to leave this site after 30 years.
Response: These actions are being taken under the authority of CERCLAwhich provides for operation and maintenance at Superfundsites for an indefinite period. RCRA is being used toprovide technical guidance for evaluating and developing thecontainment system requirements only. The proposed remedyincludes provisions for continual operation and maintenance,as well as monitoring, until contamination is removed ortreated to completion. These provisions will be specified ina Federal Judicial Consent Decree, a legally binding document.
24. Diamond Shamrock has failed to properly evaluate the impact 7to the environment and public health of their abandonment ofthe site once the 30-year period of site maintenance ends.This failure is critical since New Jersey law requiresremedial activity until the site has been remediated.
Response: As previously noted, Diamond Shamrock cannot abandon thesite after 30 years. Even if the Corporation goes bankrupt,its financial guarantees would remain in effect.
25. It is misleading to say that there is an upward hydraulicgradient at the site. When the cap deteriorates and the pumpfalls apart the natural hydraulic gradient will be downwardand into the Passaic River. Diamond Shamrock is proposing atemporary non-solution to a permanent problem.
Response: The selected remedy will be implemented with the approvaland proper financial assurance from Diamond Shamrock. Assuch, maintenance of pumps and all structures will beensured, including monitoring activities to sustain theireffectiveness indefinitely. (See response to comments #22and #23 for further discussion).
830520100
22
Containment Option
26. Major concern was expressed regarding the permanency ofDiamond Shamrock's recommended cleanup alternative. The Cityof Newark (per D. Cherot) presumes that Diamond Shamrock'srecommended alternative is an interim measure and that theNJDEP will not allow the site to become a permanent hazardouswaste facility in Newark.
Response: The recommended remedy is considered to be an interimmeasure. The recommendation is made because NJDEPwishes to initiate site remediation measures now to reducethe risks posed by the site. Since no disposal facilities ortreatment technologies are currently acceptable, anyrecommendation other than some form of on-sitecontainment would delay the initiation of remediationuntil such facilities become available or technologies aresufficiently developed. The duration of the proposed :containment remedy will depend on a number of factorsincluding the performance of the remedy, development ofmeasures to minimize excavation risks, the development of new-technologies, and the availability of existing technologiessuch as incineration for dioxin wastes.
27. Where has containment of dioxin been permitted?
Response: Containment has been implemented at sites in Arkansas andSeveso, Italy. Containment remedies for dioxin wastes havebeen selected by USEPA for the Love Canal site and HydePark Landfill in New York State.
28. Are you making a business decision, i.e., choosing analternative that will cost 951 less by storing it on siterather than getting rid of it?
Response: NJDEP does not make "business decisions" regardingcases that are being addressed by responsible parties. Theproposed containment remedy is advocated by NJDEP because itIs presently the most protective alternative. NJDEP iscommitted to recommending treatment or removal when thesecan be reliably implemented. As indicated in theprevious response, containment of dioxin wastes is beingimplemented elsewhere.
830520101
23
Proposed Alternative Vis a Vis the Passaic River
29. Diamond Shamrock has failed to evaluate the impact offlooding upon the project and the proposed use of this areafor flood control by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Response: NJDEP is aware of this potential impact. We havetransmitted our concerns to Diamond Shamrock, and havesubsequently received their response to our concerns,indicating their willingness to cooperate with NJDEP, USEPA,and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. However, due to themagnitude of the Army Corps project, the resolution to thisaspect of the selected alternative will be accomplishedthrough coordination on the part of Diamond Shamrock with theU.S. Army Corps during the remedial design phase of theselected alternative. EPA is working with the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers to ensure that the flood control projecthas no significant adverse impact on the Diamond Shamrocksite or other Superfund sites on the Passaic River. :
30. Diamond Shamrock has not evaluated the current Passaic Riverdioxin and DOT contamination and how that relates to movingforward with this recommended alternative.
Response: NJDEP has received the results of a Remedial Investigation ofthe Passaic River conducted by Diamond Shamrock duringthe summer of 1985. NJDEP is currently evaluating thefindings of that study and will request additionalstudies, if necessary. Upon completion of our review,and any additional investigations that are deemednecessary, we will be requesting that Diamond Shamrockproceed to prepare an additional Feasibility Study todevelop remedial alternatives for the detectedcontamination.
The remediation of the Fassaic River sediments is outside ofthe scope of the proposed remedial action plan, and will beaddressed through another Record of Decision.
31.
Response:
The Passaic River flood project presents a serious conflictto the encapsulation alternative. This issue needs to beaddressed. Proper operation and maintenance (O&M) is also acritical concern.
NJDEP is aware of the Passaic River flood control project, aswell as the need to secure the site from 100-year floodconditions. These considerations will be addressed byDiamond Shamrock in their remedial design. Diamond Shamrockwill consult with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineersregarding acceptable engineering design considerations.Operation and maintenance of the proposed remedy will beaddressed.
830520102
24
Other Issues
32. This 2/20/86 public hearing is not fair in that the publicdoes not have the advantage of knowing the position ofNJDEP. A hearing should be held after NJDEP makes a decisionregarding the site remedy.
Response: A public meeting was held on August 11, 1987 at which timethe Proposed Remedial Action Plan was presented to the public,
33. The recommended cancer risk factor set by Diamond Shamrock isnot acceptable. DEP has the responsibility to "get in on theact". It is inappropriate for Diamond Shamrock to set thisstandard.
Response: NJDEP agrees. The excess cancer risk typically _,employed by NJDEP for risk assessments is 1 x 10 (aone in one million risk factor). In addition, the cleanupstandards to be used for the site will be developed byNJDEP and will not be based on the acceptable riskrecommendations made by Diamond Shamrock.
34. What is the permeability of the silt?
Response: Permeability of the.silt at the site has been tested and ison the order of 10 centimeters per second. This isequivalent to a clay-type material. Additional testingwill be performed to reconfirm this in the designphase. Monitoring will be established to ensure theeffectiveness of the remedy.
35. What is NJDEP1s schedule for responding to Diamond Shamrock'srecommended alternative?
Response: Late September, 1987.
830520103
25
III. Remaining Concerns
The residents of the Ironbound community are disturbed by thepresence of hazardous wastes, especially dioxin, In theircommunity. As such, sampling and cleanup activities conducted byNJDEP and USEPA have not been well received, and have generatedconsiderable fears and anxiety on the part of the community. Itis essential to maintain a strong community relations programthroughout subsequent cleanup activities in order to minimizeunfounded concerns. It is essential to emphasize that NJDEP viewsthe proposed remedy as an interim action, and that whentechnologies for safe removal or destruction become available,they will be implemented.
830520104
26
Attachment
A. Agenda and Fact Sheet distributed at the 2/20/86 Public Meeting.B. List of Attendees at the 2/20/86 Public MeetingC. List of Speakers at the 2/20/86 Public HearingD. Letters sent to NJDEP during the public comment period
830520105
ATTACHMENT A
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
HAZARDOUS SITE MITIGATION ADMINISTRATION
Public Hearing to Rtctivt Comment on Feasibility Studyregarding
80 and 120 Lister Avenut. Newark .Thursday, February 20, 1966
7:00 p.n.St. Aloysius Theater69 Fleming Avenue
Newark. NJ
AGENDA
1) Opening Remarksand Introductions
Michael Catania, DeputyCommissioner, NJDEP
2) Overview of Project Status Dr. Jorge Berkowitz, AdministratorHazardous Site Mitigation Administration,NJDEP
3) Presentation: Feasibility Study Mr. William Button, Directorand Off-Site Remedial Action Environmental Affairs
Diamond Shamrock Corporation
4) Comment* and Questions
830520106
STATE or Vew . I E M X E Yor EvvmoyxEMTAt
FACT SHEET
en
Feasibility Study
for
80 and 120 Litter AvenueNtvark, NJEssex County
Thursday, February 20, 1986
Site Description; The 80 Lister Avenue site occupies approximately 3.5 acres Inthe Ironbound section of Newark. It Is bounded on the north by the PassalcRiver, on the east by the former Sergeant Chetnical Company (120 ListerAvenue, now owned by Diamond Shamrock Corporation), at the southeast cornerby the Dura lac Company, and on the south and west by the Sherwin-tfilliaa*Company. Although presently inactive, the site waa used for manufacturingvarious agricultural and specialty organic chemicals from 1914-1977. Themost significant period relative to contamination- observed at the site Isfrom the end of World War II to the mid-1970s. During this time, pesticidesand phenoxy herbicides were the primary products manufactured. Dioxln mayoccur as a contaminant In these products.
Background; Concern about the potential environmental Impact of dioxln In thisarea developed as information became available regarding manufacturingprocesses which had the potential to produce unwanted toxic by-productsIncluding dioxln. In the Spring of 1983 a comprehensive sampling programwas implemented by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection(NJDEP) to Investigate facilities which might have produced dioxln. Thepresence of dioxin at the 60 Lister Avenue site was identified In May 1983.Subsequent to this finding, dioxin was also discovered In several areasthroughout the Ironbound aection of Newark. Based on the results of initialinvestigations, Diamond Shamrock entered into an Administrative ConsentOrder (AGO) with the NJDEP on March 13, 1984. The' ACO requires that DiamondShamrock secure the site, prevent exposure to contaminants, determine theextent of chemical contamination, and complete a site evaluation and afeasibility study of remedial alternatives. On December 20, 1984, DiamondShamrock entered into a second ACO (ACO II) with NJDEP which requires theinvestigation and cleanup of all affected off-site areas of contamination inthe Ironbound section of Newark.
830520107
-2-
Status; Almost ell of the requirements of both AGO I and AGO TI have beenfulfilled by Diamond Shamrock. To data, Diamond Shamrock bat posted aletter of credit for approximately $16 Billion in order to conduct the vorkoutlined in both ACOi. Off-site areas hava been remediated (see attachedsummary of off-site remediation), contaminated soils hava bean transportedand containerired, and are being stored temporarily at 120 Lister Avenue.The Draft Feasibility Study for 80 Lister Avenue was completed, in December,1985" and placed in the following repositories for public reviirv:
(1) Newark Public Library, NJ Reference, 5 Washington Street. Newark;(2) Newark Public Library, 140 Van Buren Street, Newark;(3) Newark City Clerk's Offlet, 920 Broad Street. Newark; and(4) NJDEP, 432 E. State Street, Trenton.
Written comments regarding the Feasibility Study should be submitted to theDepartment prior to March 21, 1986 and forwarded to:
Grace SingerNew Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Hazardous Site Mitigation AdministrationOffice of Community Relations
CM 028 *Trenton, NJ 08625
Summary of Remedial Alternatives Considered in the Feasibility Studyt
An extensive screening of available technologies resulted in the consideration ofsix remedial action alternatives. These are:
* No action;
* In-sltu slurry vail vlth cap;
" Ground water pumping and treatment, with ir.-situ slurry wall with cap;
* Excavation with thermal treatment of materials vlth over 7 parts perbillion (ppb) dioxin coupled with In-sltu slurry wall and cap;
* Excavation and development of an on-site vault for the materials withover 7 ppb dioxin coupled with a slurry wall and cap; and
* Excavation, loading, and transportation of contaminated on-sitematerials and off-site commercial disposal, if available; a slurry wallbuilt for stability and ground water control during excavation, andmitigation of migration of remaining dioxin below the 7 ppb level afterremediation.
830520108
-3-
Summary of Off-Site Remediation
According to the December 20, 1984 Administrative Consent Order (AGO II) betveenDiamond Shamrock and the NJDEP, the following areas in the Ironbound section ofNewark have been remediated.
* Conrail Tracks: Remediated and Conrall is currently preparing thetrack for resumption of service.c
* ~ Shervin Williams Spurs; Remediated and service has 'bten restored.
* Residences; Remediation is complete where access has been granted.
* Sewers and Catch Basins; Sewers and catch basins on Raymond BouT wardand Euclid Avenue have been cleaned in accordance with the AGO.
* Brady Iron and Metals/Hildenann Property /Morris Canal; Excavation andbackfilling is complete. All post samples have been taken; resultsindicate no contamination remains above 1.0 ppb. The site will bereturned to its original contour. Demobilization of equipment andoffices is in progress. At the conclusion of remedial activities thesite will be fenced. '
* 120 lister Avenue; Approximately 1,000 containers with contaminatedsoil have been placed at this site (20,000 cubic yards) for temporarystorage. Approximately 800 of these contain material from the Bradysits.
* SCA Trailers; Decontamination of the nine trailers containingequipment from the SCA warehouse is complete.-
* Street Vacuuming; This operation was completed in mid-January, 1986.
2/86NJDEP
830520109
NAME
ATTACHMENT B
HEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONDIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
HAZARDOUS SITE MITIGATION ADMINISTRATIONPUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDYAT
80 AND 120 LISTER AVENUE
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 20, 19667:00 p.o.
ST. ALOYSIUS THEATER89 FLEMING AVENUENEWARK, NJ
AFFILIATION ADDRESS
/. , •
/ -' ' '" ' -' -
4. f^ ?:
'
V y . • ^
830520110
830520111
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 'PROTECTIONDIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
HAZARDOUS SITE MITIGATION ADMINISTRATIONPUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDYAT
80 AND 120 LISTER AVENUE
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1986 '7:00 p.m.
ST. ALOYSIUS THEATER89 FLEMING AVENUENEWARK, NJ
NAME AFFILIATION ADDRESS
S.iv,1 C
7. /
9.
0. t.<
(*f'''<
NAME AFFILIATION ADDRESS
V V r S7~U~w£*——
A&-M <aJL \ •<--~?*^-. 4d. V^TiJxCvur
7. ^ \ • X _
iC >7_ vr9.
0.-
2.
27.
E3.
29.
10.830520112
830520113
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONDIVISION OF VASTE MANAGEMENT
HAZARDOUS SITE MITIGATION ADMINISTRATIONPUBLIC REARING TO RECEIVE COMMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDYAT
80 AND 120 LISTER AVENUE
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 20, 19867:00 p.m.
ST. ALOYSIUS THEATER89 FLEMING AVENUENEWARK, NJ
NAME AFFILIATION . ADDRESS
c * KCJ
/jJ; g,
/\Wkcc C^r^tA^r 'WJIl^t.P? 'v _. . . s~\f± 5"«r~ )f ^^r wVT >^ ^^ ^ <•/" 'jr-c't »<r*>•T
(?f*<~' A- '-'
NAME AFFILIATION ADDRESS
.CfS**S\t
15.
16.
317.
18.
19: ./ ^-I UQ_Cd
20-.
30 ,<«/
jy23.
v\ V. .. <C^2_ \ •*-. T t\ ^ . .V
'' "\ '•" A >r . sy i .M> \\AX\A-vJAL25-
• S* -t •* c » 5 f v , C /J26 . X°
/\ZvJL XM. /
-7- V i ^ r uiv-r28.
c.
| r'T29.
30.830520114
HEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONDIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
HAZARDOUS SITE MITIGATION ADMINISTRATIONPUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDYAT
60 AND 120 LISTER AVENUE
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 20, 19867:00 p.m.
ST. ALOYSIUS THEATER89 FLEMING AVENUENEWARK, NJ
NAME AFFILIATION ADDRESS
. y '. s /^ " - *
}},tj_
/v•^r
}>. • ;
' ; ///C ~ n£<$ L^7K>VK(2.>t^ju
V '5 ? (\. w '//^-^ ^>.V7/.'*-
.i.:/r A-
i.
830520115
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONDIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
HAZARDOUS SITE MITIGATION ADMINISTRATIONPUBLIC REARING TO RECEIVE COMMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDYAT
80 AND 120 LISTER AVENUE
THURSDAYt DECEMBER 20, 19867:00 p.m.
ST. ALOYSIUS THEATER89 FLEMING AVENUE
NEWARK, NJ
NAME AFFILIATION ADDRESS
Ti
830520116
ATTACHMENT C
•
Speakers at the 2/20/86 Diamond Shamrock Public Hearing
Mr. Dennis C. Cherot, Director, Newark Department of Health and Welfare
Mr. Henry Kartinez, Councilman, City of Newark
Mr. Alvin Zach, Director, Newark Department of Engineering*
|«i*
Ma. Kathryn Sova, for Essex County Executive Peter Shapiro —
Mr. Michael Gordon, Attorney, Ironbound Committee Against Toxics
Mr. Arnold Cohen, Ironbound Committee Against Toxics
Mr. Victor DeLuca, Administrator, Ironbound Community Corporation
Ma. Rena Kopystenskl, Executive Director, Agent Orange Victims of New Jersey
Mr. Peter Montague, Consultant
Ms. June Kruszewski, Ironbound Committee Against Toxics
Ms. Sandra King, Reporter, New Jersey Network News
830520117
ATTACHMENT D
830520118
Newark I A. aiMayor
AMn L ZMh. M.; US.Director
_onoi
February 21, 1986
Mr. Michael F. CataniaDeputy CommissionerN.J. Dept. of Environmental ProtectionCN 402Trenton, New Jersey 08625.• i» » %- • • ••< «RE: Public Hearing - Feasibility Study For Final Remediation
of the Dicxir, C»n rani nation at 80 Lister Avenue
Dear Mr. Catania:
As a follow up to my testimony last night, concerning the above,Z received a letter this morning from West Germany's Departmentof Environmental Protection, dated February 18, 1986 (copyattached), in response to my cablegram of January 29, 1986.The letter indicates that there is a registered landfill fordioxin contaminated debris in Xassel West Germany.
Z would urge that you movt to require that Diamond Shamrockrealistically assess not only this noted West German disposal•ite, but, also other international disposal sites that areproperly designed and constructed to properly dispose of such debris
The tipping fee at Xasse> is DM 211 per metric tonne, which trans-lates at today's exchange of $91.15 per metric ton of wastethat would be landfilled.
Newark830520119
Michael P. CataniatetterFebruary 21, 1986Page 2
Please a a vise me, at y—- »*ji •»•**• «-*-.,<v»-wh«:t steps you plan to —.. *...'the proper disposal at -_.-.-. C-Z^A-- :
An early response would be most &ee-~Very truly ypurif
Zach, P.E., DirectorDepartment of Engineering
ALZ:as.,»'... • ^ •
CC: Kenneth A. Gibson,'*Mayor *Henry Martinez, Councilman, East WardElton Hill, B-Jsir.ess AdministratorRichard Dewellins, DEP, Comir.issior.*r
830520120
cmzcrs CICMINOHOUSC ton HAZMDOUS WASTCS. INC.•OSl OMCt KB m MUOtOK ¥WOM* •§!•
March 4, 1986
Ma. Grace SingerNew Jersey Departoent of Environmental
ProtectionHazardous Mitigation AdministrationCN 028Trenton. NJ 08625
Dear Ma. Singer:
The Citizens Clearinghouse is a national grassroots organization thatworks with community groups across the country concerned with probleas causedby hazardous and toxic chemicals. We are concerned and troubled by the planproposed by Diamond Shamrock to clean up soils contaminated with dlozins inthe Ironbound neighborhood of Newark. As we understand the cleanup plan,Diamond Shamrock proposes to place diozin laden soils in a landfill on theirproperty in this area.
Given the growing scientific evidence documenting the failures oflandfills, we are surprised and disappointed that DEP la even consideringthis as an alternative.
Ve would expect that DEP is familiar with studies conducted at bothPrlnceton University and Texas A & M Universities, aa well aa reportsprepared by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and theNational Academy of Sciences (see attached reference list). These studiesand others have come to the same general conclusion: all landfills willeventually fall. The National Academy Report further stated that landfillingshould only be considered aa "the last alternative after all waste treatmenttechnologies.. .have been explored." Have all other treatment technologiesbeen considered here?
Landfilla built with even the best available engineering design arestill destined to fail. It is only a matter of time. Permitting DiamondShamrock to landfill these wastes in a community is only asking for trouble.The only advantage to the plan seems to be a cheap and convenient way forDiamond Shamrock to dispose of these wastes. This is not in the bestinterest of the local community. DEP' a first priority should be to providemaximum protection of public health and the environment and not make life"easy" for industry.
830520121
Page 2Ms. Grace SingerMarch 4, 1986
Ve hope DEP will NOT apporove this proposed plan, but rather con'sldercleanup options that will Bore permanently destroy or detoxify the dioxin-laden soils. Landfilllng the wastes is not a solution. It would be amistake.
Thank you for consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Stephen U. LesterScience Director
>is Marie GibbsExecutive Director
SUL:LMG/gfm
830520122
STUDIES DOCUMENTING FAILURES OF LANDFILLS
1) Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control.Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment, Washington,D.C., March, 1983.
\
2) Management of Hazardous Industrial Wastes, Research and Development Needs,National Materials Advisory Board, National Research Council of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, March, .1983.
<
3) Wtil 1am Sanjour. U.S. EPA and K1rk W. Brown. Texas A & M UniversityTestimony before the House Subcommittee on Natural Resources, AgricultureResearch and Environment of the Committee on Science and Technology.November 30, 1982. (Comments on EPA proposed regulations for the landdisposal of hazardous wastes).
4) Alternatives to the Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes. An Assessment forCalifornia. Prepared by the Toxic Waste Assessment Group, Governor'sOffice of Appropriate Technology, State of California, 1981. Availablefrom Publications and Information, OAT, 1600 Ninth St., Sacramento, CA95814. Phone: 916/323-8133.
5) Hazardous Waste Landfills - Can Clay Liners Prevent Migration of ToxicLeachate? Alien Morrison. C1v1l Engineering • ASCE. July, 1981.
6) Organic Leachate Effects on the Permeability of Clay Liners. D.C. Anderson,K.W. Brown, J.D. Green appeared In the proceedings of the National Confer-ence on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites. October 28-30,1981.
7) The Interaction of Clay-Soil with Water and Organic Solvents: Implicationsfor the Disposal of Hazardous Wastes. William J. Green, S. Fred Lee andR. Anne Jones. Accepted for publication J. Env. Sc1. and Techn. 1982.
8) Performance Difficulties of "Secure" Landfills for chemical Waste andAvailable Mitigation Measures. Peter N. Skinner; Appeared 1n The HazardousWaste Dilemma: Issues and Solutions. 1980 Conference of EnvironmentalEngineering Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 1981.
9) Four Secure Landfills 1n New Jersey—A Study of the State of the Art 1nShallow Burial Waste Disposal Technology, Draft of February 1. 1981. Dr.Peter Montague, Dept. of Chemical Engineering and Center for Energy andEnv. Studies, Sch. of Eng./Applied Sc1., Prlnceton Univ.. Princton. N.J.,19B1.
10) Discussion Paper: State Action to Reduce Land Disposal of Toxic Wastes.Prepared by the Interagency Task Force for Reduction of Land Disposal ofToxic Wastes. State of California, Dept. of Health Services: January,1982.
11) Hazardous Waste Disposal Methods: Major Problems With Their Use. Reportby the Comptroller General of the United States. U.S. General AccountingOffice, Report No. CED-81-21. November 19, 1980.
830520123
CONSULTANT M ENMPONMENTAL SERVICES AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTHCARE
March 12, 1986*
Ms" Grace Singer —New Jersey Department of Environmental ProtectionHazardous Site Mitigation AdministrationOffice of Comunity RelationsCN 028Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Dear Ms. Singer,
As an environmentalist and someone with family concerns inthe Ironbound communityof Newark, I would like to take this opportunityto cement on the Feasibility Study done by Diamond Shamrock Corp.with regard to the "Clean-up1 and/or remediation of contaminants at80 and 120 Lister Avenue, Newark.
It was my understanding at the Public Hearing held on thissubject on February 20, 1986, that excavation and off-site transport-ation and disposal of the dioxin contaminated materials is NOT analternative since;
1. Dioxin is not accepted at any established out-of-statelandfill in this country from an out-of-state source, and
2. Excavation of said contaminants would innately produce"more" air pollution and contamination of the environment.
As outlined in the FACT SHEET on the Feasibility Study for 80and 120 Lister Avenue, Newark, N.J., I fundamentally agree with thesixth Remedial Alternative considered:
"Excavation, loading and transportation of contaminatedon-site materials and off-site commercial disposal, ifavailable; a slurry wall built for stability and groundwater control during excavation, and mitigation of migra-tion of remaining dioxin below the 7 ppb level afterremediation."Since the decisions made here will be an accomodation of existing
law for any of the alternatives, it seems to me perhaps an "arrangementcould be made between the (NJ)DEP and (FEDERAL)EPA to have alreadyestablished "Dioxin-Qualified" out-of-state landfills accept our dioxinwaste, at least temporarily until New Jersey has it's own such facility.
830520124
1121 BUTCNET AVENUE UNION, NEW JERSEY 07083 201-851-9470
Ms. Grace Singer March 12, 1986New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Page Two
As for the excavation further contaminating the environment, weboth know there are ways and means to excavate safely and without furthercontaminating the surrounding air, water and land, however costly toDiamond Shamrock.
I thank you for this opportunity to comment on this situationand hope you can arrive at a remedial alternative that is agreeable toall concerned.
If I can be of help in any way, please feel free to contact me.
Yours truly,
Maria A. Del Tufo, R.T.
cc: Councilman Henry MartinezEast Ward, Newark, N.J.
830520125
Mb
KENNETH A.GIBSONMAVOA
NEWARK. NEW JERSEYO7IO3
March 18, 1986
»-Honorable Ricl.avd V. i.i*IingCommissionerN. J. Department of Environmental
ProtectionCN 402Trenton, New Jersey 0862S
Dear Commissioner Dewling:
In addition to exploring the use of registered sites outsideof the United States for*the safe and proper storage'of thedioxin contaminated waste as noted in Mr. Zach's letter toMr. Catania of February 21, 1986 (copy attached), I wouldlike to suggest that you require Diamond Shamrock to explorethe use of EPA's first registered disposal site for dioxin inthe United States. The J. M. Huber Corporation has recentlybeen permitted by EPA for dioxin disposal in Texas. I amattaching a copy of ten articles printed in the March issue of"World Waste," which describes the dioxin disposal process.
iIn that disposal facilities are available, the dioxin fromthe Diamond Stfamrock property and other contaminated sites inNewark shpyfy/tiot bt permitted to be stored in Newark.
Sincer
Ke/pfeth A. GibsonMayor . . '
KAG:pa
Attaclunents
cc: Mr. Alvin L. Zach, P.E., L.S., Director, Newark Dcpt. ofEngineering
Honorable Michael F. Catania, Deputy Commissioner, N. J.Dept. of Environmental Protection
Newark"~^-'-v
830520126
LAW OFFICES
CORDON AND CORDONA ntOFEUIONAL COWOKAT1ON
BO MAIN STREETWEST ORANGE. NEW JERSEY O7052HAWUiON J GORDON
MICHAEL CORDONTIMOTHY SHAUY AREA CODE 201
VALTEK. J.CURTJSMarch 18, 1935
Gerard Burke, Esq.Director of Regulatory Services • °State of New Jersey „.. .,. ,..;.- :-.c,Department of Envrironmental Protection ^ '•'''• '•;;.*' rV.•.-Office of Regulatory Services ;,;T. ,.-,uJu ,»o,CN-402Trenton, New Jersey 08525 •-———:-..'———
RE: Diamond Shaarock FeasibilityStudy Comments
Dear Mr. Burke:
The following comments are submitted on behalf of theiIronbound Health Rights Advisory Commission and Arnold Cohen.
These wri t ten comments are in addi t ion and adept the oral
comments made by myself , Dr. Peter Montague and Arnold Cchen at
the public meeting held by DEP on the feasibility study.
The main areas of concern and def ic iencies found in the
feas ib i l i ty s tudy are the fol lowing:
1. Diamond has failed to comply with 7:25-1.1 by not
exp lo r ing all a l t e rna t ives and fa i l ing to list detai led reasons
why off -s i te disposal is not ava i lab le .
2. Diamond has fa i led to fu l f i l l its obligation to f u r n i s h
830520127
communications regarding the availability of off-site opticr.s for
disposal. This prevents a meaningful evaluation of available
alternatives remember DEP specifically requested this inforaaticn
fee Contained in the study in August of 1935.
"3. Diamond has failed to evaluate the legal requirements
applied by DEP to site cleanups in N.J. This prevents the
evaluation of what laws will be broken by the cleanup option
selected by Diamond.
4. Diamond has failed to evaluate the impacts of Judge
Stanton's order and opinion (copies atached)-. These require that
the cleanup achieve the highest level of cleanup that the
boundaries of our known technology would allow.
5. Diamond has failed to evaluate the impacts of known
cleanup and construction methodologies upon the options requiringi•
excavation of materials, ie. reverse pressure within a covered
work area. This means the evaluation of alterntives presented is
clearly misleading. Diamond relies on this misinformation to
tllainate any options containing excavation of soils.
6. Diamond has failed to properly evaluate the impact upon
the environment and public health of abandonment of the site by
Diamond once the 30 year time frame of maintenance of the site
envisioned by Diamond's feasbility study ends. This failure is
critical for New Jersey law requires remedial activity until the
site has been cleaned and responsibility for ongoing cleanup
830520128
activity is not ended by the mere passage of time.
7. Diamond has improperly developed • groundwater
decontamination program based upon the chemical characteristics
of two 'compounds when we know literally a hundred compounds are
contaminating the site. The likelihood of success of any
groundwater program oust evaluate the mobility, toxicity, etc. of
all compounds present above the New Jersey standard of 10 ppb
being used for ground water cleanups at industrial sites. The
feasibility study does not recognize the proper cleanup goal of
remediation until all contaminants are below the 10 ppb.
standard.
8. Diamond has failed to evaluate the impact of flooding
upon the project and the proposed use of this area for flood
control by the Army Corps.
9. Diamond has failed to evaluate the New Jersey
requirements for thickness and permeability as to liners at new
waste disposal locations. Diamond1* reliance on the present silt
layer is illegal.
10. Diamond has not evaluated .the siting, permitting
construction operation, and maintenance of a new Diamond dioxin
disposal facility, within New Jersey or anywhere else in the
world.
11. Diamond has not evaluated the disposal of dioxin
contaminated soil at licensed international disposal sites.
830520129
12. Diamond has not evaluated the current Passaic River
dioxin and DDT contamination and how that relates to moving
forward with this recommended alternative.
13' The recommended alternative does not evaluate the cost*£.
and legal constraints of seeking to become a licensed permitted
solid waste or hazardous waste disposal facility within New
Jersey. This is what is being recommended by Diamond.
The Ironbound Health Advisory Commission is adament that the
objectives outlined by Diamond in its executive summary are
illegal in part and do not meet the cleanup requirements as
mandated by the judicial decision of Judge Stanton. Judge
Stanton has determined that Diamond Shamrock is legally
responsible to cleanup these sites to the extent permitted by
known technology. This does not mean merely contain•
eonn taminan t s on site, or merely reduce the mass transport of DDT
and Dioxin in the ground water , or merely eliminate the mass
transport of chemicals from the site to the Passaic River, or
mean undue concern for the most pest effective method when that
method does not represent a total cleanup. Judge Stanton's
rul ing means the implementat ion of c leanup and removal to a
secure facili ty and the commentors will pursue this
interpretat ion in court if necessary in order to prevail upon DEP
to requi re a real cleanup. D i a m o n d ' s cur ren t study is incomplete
and the I ronbound Heal th Righ ts A d v i s o r y Commiss ion requests a
830520130
- 73 -
Footnotes for Table VI
1. Statutory citation: N.J.S.A. 13:1E-1 et. seq.(Also knownas the Solid waste Management Act). Additional informationregarding the requirements for hazardous waste landfills.may be found at N.J.A.C. 7:26-jl et. seq.. Since the SolidWaste Management Act encompassess the requirements set bythe Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),Federal RCRA ARARs that are waived will have stateequivalents that will also be waived.
2. Although leachate will be collected as a result of pumpingand treating groundwater within the proposed sluury wall,the leachate collection system will not attain the minimumRCRA requirements including a leachate collection systettabove and between liners. ^
3. Buffer zone is a state ARAR which will be waived since thesite conditions, i.e., size, does not allow 200 feet ofsetback.
830520131
- 74 -
Table VII
Other Cleanup Standards
830520132
BASE/NEUTRAL-ACID EXTRACTABLES HealthAdvisor ies(1)
(ppb)
SoilCleanup(3)
(ppb)
2 , 4 , 6-Trichlorophenol2-»Chlorophenol2,4^DichlorophenolPhenolBenzoic Acid2*Methylphenol4*Methylphenol2,4,5-TrichlorophenolAcenaphthenel,2,4*TrichlorobenzeneHexachlorobenzene2§Chloronaphthalenel,2nDichlorobenzenel,3*Dichlorobenzenel,4*DichlorobenzeneFluorantheneNaphthaleneBis(2Methylhexyl)phthalateDi*Nr*butylphthalateBenzo(a)anthraceneAnthraceneFluorenePhenanthrenePyreneBenzyl alcohol2-»Methylnaphthalene
VOLATILE ORGANICS
BenzeneChlorobenzenel,2nDichloroethane1,1,1-tTrich lor oe thane1,l*DichloroethaneChloroform1,1-iDichloroethenetrans-1,2-tDichloretheneEthylbenzeneMethylene ChlorideTetrachloroetheneTolueneTrichloroetheneVinyl ChlorideAcetone
10,00010,00010,00010,00010,00010,00010,00010,00010,00010,00010,00010,00010,00010,00010,00010,00010,000
1,0001,0001,0001,000irooo1,000
1,0001,0001,000
1,0001,0001,0001,000
- 75 -
VOLATILE ORGANICS continued HealthAdvisories(1)
(ppb)
830520133
SoilCleanup(2)
(ppb)
2*BUtanoneCarbon Bisulfide4*Methyl-*2*pentanoneTotal xylenes
1,0001,0001,0001,000
HERBICIDES, PESTICIDES,AND PCBS
4,4*DDT4,4-i DDE4,4*DDDAlpha->endosul£an2,4*D2,4,5*T2,4-,DBDinoseb (DNBP)2,3,7,8-TCDD
INORGANIC PARAMETERS
AntimonyArsenicBerylliumCadmiumChromiumCopperLeadMercuryNickelSeliniumSilverZincTotal CyanideTotal PhenolNitrate Nitrogen
OTHER PARAMETERSTDtal Organic Carbon (TOOTotal Suspended SolidsPetroleum HydrocarbonsTotal Toxic OrganicsTotal Volatile Organics
1.0
20,000
3,000100,000170,000400,000
1,OOO100,0004,0005,000
350,00012,000
100,000
1,000
- 76 -
Footnotes for Table VII
1. Health Advisories % Guidance received from appropriate healthagencies such as the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and theNew Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH). Considered as otherguidance to be employed in the implementation of the selectedalternative.
The concentration of 1.0 ppb of dioxin is a soil concentrationthat was developed by the CDC and has been appliedconsistently at cleanups throughout New Jersey.
A risk based 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration of 500 nanograms persquare meter has been developed by the NJDEP to be employedduring cleanup of surfaces contaminated with dioxin. (e.g.,trucks, backhoes, etc.). This concentration of dioxin has beenemployed in the past to assess the performance ofdecontamination procedures.
2. Soil Cleanup Standards -> These standards are not yetpromulgated, but have been accepted and used by the NJDEP.They are therefore presented here for consideration asappropriate and relevant requirements.
The concentration noted in each organic category are for eachcompound individually or the total sum concentration of thatclass of compound, e.g., the total concentration of baseneutral compounds cannot exceed 10,000 ppb. Inorganicconcentrations are for individual elements. Concentrationsgiven are based on best professional judgement, riskassessment, best available technology (detection limits), orknown average background concentrations.
830520134
- 77 -meet the ARARs for tanks, containers and effluent quality during theremedial action. As a general rule, the remedial action should not resultin any new instances of non-attainment of ARARs, except as provided bySection 121(d)(4). In contrast, instances of non-attainment of ARARs whichexist prior to the commencement of remedial action generally cannot becorrected until the remedial action (or a portion of the remedial action)has been completed. The timing of the attainment of ARARs listed in TablesIII and V will be in accordance with the above principles.
The selected remedial alternative described in Section IX of this ROD willbe designed to meet all pertinent ARARs and other cleanup standards exceptthose listed in Table IVB and VI:
The RCRA land disposal ban
The RCRA standards for landfill design
The New Jersey Solid Waste Management Act requirements for landfilldesign, requiring a liner system and a 200 foot buffer zone -3
For the reasons given in item (B) under Additional Considerations ConcerningAlternative 3 in Section VII of this ROD, Section 121(d)(4)(B) of CERCLAallows the selection of the chosen remedy despite the fact that it does notcomply with the RCRA land disposal ban or landfill design standards.Similarly, Section 121(d)(4)(B) also allows for selection of the chosenalternative despite the fact that it does not comply with the New JerseySolid Waste Management Act requirements for landfill design. In addition,the 200 foot buffer zone requirement (no disposal within 200 feet of theproperty line) is technically impracticable given the site dimensions andwould provide no significant added protection given the presence ofhazardous substances already in the ground near the property line. Thesecircumstances allow for the selection of the chosen alternative pursuant toSections 121 (d)(4)(C) and (D) despite the fact that it will not comply withthe buffer zone requirement.
IX. Description of the Selected Alternative
The evaluation of remedial alternatives presented in Section VIII of thisdocument determined that Alternative 3 is the most protective of thealternatives considered in the Feasibility Study. However, severalmodifications of Alternative 3 would make it more protective including:
1. The remedy shall be designed to attain the cleanup standards listedin Tables III, V, and VII of Section VIII, which include a morestringent soil, cleanup standard for dioxin as well as morestringent requirements for flood control.
2. Drums containing hazardous substances but containing less than 1ppb of dioxin shall be transported off-site for treatment ordisposal.
3. A Feasibility Study shall be performed at least every two (2) yearsfollowing the installation of the remedy to develop, screen andassess remedial alternatives. These Feasibility Studies willevaluate the performance of the remedy as well as new andalternative technologies.
830520135
- 78-
The components of Alternative 3 with the above modifications are describedbelow:
1. Construct a slurry wall encircling the site tying into the silt layerunderlying the site.
2. Construct a flood wall and appurtenances to protect the site from the100 year flood. Such flood wall shall conform to the specificationsand guidances of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the NJDEP andshall include as a design consideration the impact of the proposedPassaic River flood control project.
3. Disassemble and decontaminate all non-porous permanent structures andmaterials to the maximum extent practicable for off-site reuse, recycleor disposal.
4. Transport all drums containing hazardous substances but containing lessthan 1 ppb of TCDD off site for treatment or disposal.
rj*w
5. Demolish all remaining structures on site and secure all materialscontaminated above 1 ppb of TCDD on site. Secured materials shall besegregated to the maximum extent practicable to afford access to andfacilitate removal of more highly contaminated materials, should suchremoval be selected as a remedy at a later date.
6. Stabilize and immobilize the contents of the remaining drums of dioxincontaminated materials.
7. Locate and plug underground conduits and re-route active systems.
8. Haul, empty, spread and compact the contaminated materials presentlystored at 120 Lister Avenue; decontaminate the shipping containers fproff-site reuse, recycle or disposal.
9. Install, operate, and maintain a ground water withdrawal systemdesigned to maintain a hydraulic gradient preventing the migration ofground water from the volume contained within the slurry wall.
10. Install, operate, and maintain a treatment system for ground water andother aqueous liquids.
11. Construct a surficial cap consisting of suitable materials designed tomeet the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
12. Implement suitable -monitoring, contingency, operation and maintenanceand site security plans to ensure the protection of human health andthe environment during and after the installation of the selectedalternative.
13. On-site placement and capping of the sludge generated from allwastewater treatment processes until such time that an alternativemethod of sludge management is approved.
14. Design, construct and operate the remedy to attain the cleanupstandards listed in Tables III, V, and VII of Section VIII of theRecord of Decision.
830520136
- 79 -
15. Perform a Feasibility Study every 24 months following the installationof the selected interim remedy to develop, screen and assess remedialalternatives and to assess the performance of the selected remedy.
It should be noted that, although the cap described in the Feasibility Studyincludes a layer of concrete at the surface, the RCRA regulations do notspecifically require the cap to have a concrete component. Since theproposed concrete portion of the cap could interfere with futuremodifications of the remedy which may be needed, the alternative describedabove does not specifically call for a concrete cap.
The remedial alternative described above is consistent with the requirementsof the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Actof 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and ReauthorizationAct of 1986 (SARA), and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances PollutionContingency Plan (NCP), 40 C.F.R Part 300. This remedial alternative hasbeen determined to be consistent with Section 121 of SARA. In particular,this alternative has been determined to provide adequate protection ofpublic health and welfare and the environment, to be cost-effective and tebe appropriate when balanced against the availability of Trust Fund monie$for use at other sites.
830520137
- 80 -
X. Enforcement
As noted in the previous section concerning the background chronology, theNJDEP has issued two Administrative Consent Order for the Diamond ShamrockSite and EPA entered into a voluntary cost reimbursement agreement withDiamond Shamrock.
EPA and NJDEP plan to negotiate with Diamond Shamrock for the design andimplementation of the selected remedy. EPA intends that any agreement forDiamond Shamrock to design and implement the remedy would be in the form ofa Consent Decree entered into pursuant to Section 122(d) of CERCLA.
XI. Community Relations
The discovery of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the Ironbound Community in 1983 causedgrave concerns by the residents in the vicinity over the habitability of thearea, as well as fears related to the potential long term health effects ofthe presence of TCDD in the environment.
.»Total or partial excavation and removal of contaminants from the site hobeen encouraged by the public, however, it is noted that there is currentlyno facility in the United States that can accept dioxin contaminatedmaterials from the site, nor is one anticipated in the near future. Lackingthe ability to implement an off-site removal in the near future, it isbelieved that the community would accept, grudgingly, a containmentalternative that would minimize potential health and safety concerns untilsuch time that removal or treatment of contaminant materials becomesrealistically achievable. It therefore appears that the selectedalternative would satisfy those concerns. Specific comments from communityrepresentatives are addressed in the Responsiveness Summary, which isincluded as an attachment to this document.
830520138
- 81 -
XIII. Glossary of Terms and Acronyms
ARARs
CERCLA
DDT
Dioxin
EPA
Feasibility Study
NCP
NJDEP
Off-Site
PIRAP
RCRA
- applicable or relevant and appropriaterequirements of Federal and Stateenvironmental laws
- the Comprehensive Environmental ResponseCompensation and Liability Act, as amendedby the Superfund Amendments andReauthorizatlon Act of 1986
- Dichlorodiphenyl Trichloroethane
- 2,3,7,8-tetrachloredibenzo-p-dioxin, alsoreferred to as TCDD or 2,3,7,8-TCDD
- the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- as used herein, "the Feasibility Study"refers to the feasibility study performed bytDiamond Shamrock Chemicals Company for the ^properties at 80 and 120 Lister Avenuepursuant to two Administrative ConsentOrders issued by NJDEP
- the National Oil and Hazardous SubstancesPollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300)
- the New Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtection
- as used herein, "off-site" refers to allother areas than 80 and 120 Lister Avenue,Newark, NJ
- Proposed Interim Remedial Action Plan
- the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,as amended
Remedial Investigation
ROD
SARA
- as used herein, "the RemedialInvestigation" refers to the siteevaluations performed by Diamond ShamrockChemicals Company for the properties at80 and 120 Lister Avenue pursuant to twoAdministrative Consent Orders issued byNJDEP
- Record of Decision
- the Superfund Amendments and ReauthorizationAct of 1986
830520139
-82-
Site - The Diamond Shamrock Superfund Site (alsoknown as the Diamond Alkali Superfund site) inits broadest sense, is the former pesticidesmanufacturing facility at 80 Lister Avenue andthe surrounding areas which have beencontaminated by hazardous substances whichoriginated at 80 Lister Avenue. However, "thesite," as used in this Record of Decision,refers only to the portions of the DiamondShamrock Superfund Site located at 80 and 120Lister Avenue.
830520140
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
Sunton W^W^ff COURTHOUSEAtaigrmtnt Judg* ^&3r£r Morrotown, N«w Jtnty 07960
(201) 829-8039MORRIS AND SUSSEX COUNTIES
P"- February 3, 1986
Michael Gordon, Esq.Gordon and Gordon80 Main StreetWest Orange, New Jersey 07052
Francis E. P. McCarter, Esq.McCarter and English550 Broad StreetNewark, New Jersey 07102
Rhonda S. Birnbaum, Esq.fioagland, Longo, Oropollo & MoranP.O. Box 480New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903
Philip L. Guarino, Esq.Lowenstein, Sandier, Brochin, Kohl, Fisher, iBoylan 6 Meanor
65 Livingston AvenueRoseland, New Jersey 07068
Kenneth S. Kasper, Esq.Shanley & Fisher131 Madison AvenueMorristown, New Jersey 07960
Patricia Massa Bass, Esq.Dughi t Hewit340 North AvenueCranford, New Jersey 07016
Dwyer, Connell & Lisbona427 Bloomfield Avenue ' -Montclair, New Jersey 07042 ...
Richard F. Engel, Esq.Deputy Attorney GeneralHughes Justice ComplexCN 112Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Re: Ironbound Health Rights Advisory Commission, et al. v..Diamond Shamrock Chemic3ls Co., et al.;
830520141
page 23/3/86
Chancery Division, Essex County;Docket No. C-3190-83E — LETTER OPINION
-Dear Counsel:•
On January 8, 1986, an Order Granting Final Equitable^eliefand Transferring Damage Claims to Law Division was entered byme in this action. The Order acted as a final judgment withrespect to plaintiffs' claims for equitable relief. OnFebruary 24, 1986, I received notice that the defendants NewJersey Department of Environmental Protection and New JerseyDepartment of Health appeal from a portion of the Order. ThisLetter Opinion is issued pursuant to R. 2:5-l(b) and must bemade part of the record on appeal.
Over a period of years, the defendant Diamond Shamrock ChemicalCompany, or a corporate entity to which it was related, manu-factured a chemical herbicide in a factory at 80 Lister Avenuein the Ironbound section of Newark, New Jersey. Under the name"Agent Orange" this herbicide was widely used as a defoliantduring the Vietnam War. A by-product of the herbicide is anextremely troublesome dioxin.
Tests on many standard species of laboratory animals have shownthat the dioxin involved here is highly toxig. Indeed, forsome standard species, the dioxin is super toxic, with extremelysmall quantities producing quick death. Experience with standardspecies of test animals would lead one to suspect that exposureto dioxin might produce devastating results in humans.
Before the dioxin in question was perceived as being as potentiallydangerous as we now suspect it may be, many human beings wereexposed to it in one way or another. Nevertheless, the devas-tating results for humans which might have been predicted fromthe test results we now have on laboratory animals do not seemto have occurred. The evidence in .this case indicates thatmost human beings exposed to this dioxin have not yet experiencedany adverse results, at least none which can be presently detected.When exposed humans have experienced detectable adverse results,the problems seem to be relatively minor.
It may be that the human organism has an ability to withstandexposure to this dioxin which the standard species of test animalsdo not share, or it may be that exposed humans have receiveddamage which is slow in manifesting itself. All of us hope,of course, that the dioxin is not seriously harmful to humans.
830520142
page 33/3/86
But our experience with other chemicals forces us to be cautious,because we know that we are sometimes seriously damaged by achemical without being aware of it until many years have passedafter the exposure. In this regard/ one cannot help thinkingabout .a synthetic estrogen (DES), an approved therapeutic drugwhich was routinely administered to many pregnant wofcen to preventmiscarriages. The women taking DES did not appear to be hurtby it, the babies they produced appeared to be healthy, andgrew into healthy young children. However, as those childrenpassed through puberty into adolescence, vastly disproportionatenumbers of them developed serious cancers. The human realityand the human decency of our present situation require us toregard persons exposed to dioxin as being at special risk.They will remain at special risk for many years to come. Itis imperative that responsible public agencies operate carefullydesigned programs to test, monitor and, if necessary, -treatpersons exposed to dioxin.
Many years ago, defendant Diamond Shamrock Chemical Companyused the factory at 80 Lister Avenue to manufacture herbicide.All of the persons who worked in the factory during that manu-facturing process were exposed in a substantial way to dioxin.The families of those workers were exposed to the dioxin ina different, but potentially significant, way. After DiamondShamrock stopped using the factory at 80 Lister Avenue, otherbusinesses used the premises for different manufacturing processes.By that time there were relatively large amounts of dioxin inthe soil and materials at 80 Lister Avenue, and these workerswere exposed. Their families have had a derivative exposureto dioxin. Over the years, dioxin has been carried from 80Lister Avenue into the surrounding neighborhood. Neighborhoodfactory workers and residents have been exposed to varying amountsof dioxin. In short, over the years, various categories ofpersons have been exposed in different ways, for different lengthsof time, to varying amounts of dioxin. On the face of it, someof the exposure is potentially very dangerous, some is potentiallymoderately dangerous in some degree or other, and some is probablynot dangerous. But nobody really knows.
The fact that there was substantial dioxin contamination at80 Lister Avenue and its environs came to public attention in1982. Shortly thereafter, this action was instituted. .Plaintiffshave sought a wide range of injunctive relief. Some of therelief was aimed at physical cleaning of 80 Lister Avenue andsurrounding areas; some of it was aimed at identifying, testing,monitoring and treating the various categories of persons ex-
830520143
page 43/3/86
posed to the dioxin. There were also claims for substantialmoney damages. At the outset, I determined (without any seriousobjection from any of the parties or their attorneys) that toppriority had to be given to physical abatement and cleaningof the environment and to helping to get appropriate healthprograms in place. Financial liability problems wera.ZDf decidedlysecondary importance. I did not want to see the energy andresources of public officials and the parties diverted fromthe need to solve existing environmental and health problems.Accordingly, I stayed all proceedings with respect to damageclaims, and I prohibited any discovery on the damage claims.
Although we have never had and never will have a plenary trialon the equitable relief claims in this case, we have had ex-tensive interlocutory proceedings dealing with the equitablerelief claims. There have been many fortunate aspects to thiscase. The executive branch of our State government has givenextensive attention to the problems at and around 80 ListerAvenue. The attention has often been at the highest level,with the Commissioner of Health, the Commissioner of the De-partment of Environmental Protection and the Governor himselfbecoming personally involved in some of the executive branchdecision-making. Diamond Shamrock has exhibited an enlightenedsocial conscience with respect to the environmental problemsand has entered into consent administrative orders with theDepartment of Environmental Protection which.' have committedmany millions of dollars and considerable technical expertiseto the removal of dioxin from 80 Lister Avenue and its environs.
In particular, there have been fairly extensive interlocutoryproceedings with respect to health issues. We have never hadoral testimony on the health issues, but we have had extensiveexpert testimony by way of affidavits and reports. Mostly asa result of its own initiatives, but partly as a result of proddingin this action, the New Jersey Department of Health producedan elaborate plan to test and monitor in different ways thevarious categories of exposed persons. (Federal health agenciesapparently played a large role in developing that plan, butthe New Jersey Commissioner of Health approved the plan andauthorized its submission to this Court as his plan to dealwith the health needs of the situation.) The Department ofHealth plan was not acceptable to plaintiffs, but after hearingthe arguments of the parties and reviewing their extensive documentarysubmissions, I decided that the plan submitted by the Statewas an adequate program for dealing with the health issues.Accordingly, I entered an Order approving the plan some timeago.
830520144
cage 53/3/86
By the summer of 1985, it appeared to me that the Departmentof Environmental Protection and the Department of Health hadthe real-life problems of this case well in hand. That is notto -say that the problems were solved. Far from it. Many futureyears pf work are involved here. The environmental cleanupplan-and the health plan will require ongoing revision and updatingas work progresses and as more facts become known. However,it seemed to me that the Commissioner of the Department of EnvironmentalProtection and the Commissioner of the Department of Healthwere addressing all of the problems with vigor and with expertisethat the Court did not possess. Accordingly, I suggested tothe parties that perhaps the Court should terminate the equitablerelief portion of the case and transfer the damage claims tothe Law Division for further proceedings. I invited the partiesto submit written argument. After receiving the arguments ofthe parties, I entered the January 8, 1986 Order Granting FinalEquitable Relief and Transferring Damage Claims to the Law Division.
So far as equitable relief claims are concerned, the January 8Order provides as follows:
"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissionerof Department of Health shall implement (withfederal technical assistance and financial aid,if available; but without them,if they are not available)the medical testing and monitoring prbgram previouslyapproved by the Court, and the Commissioner of Departmentof Environmental Protection shall continue toenforce the cleanup of dioxin contamination atan(d) in the environs of 80 Lister Avenue,Newark, New Jersey to the greatest extent feasiblewithin the bounds of known technology. ...
"The Court is satisfied that the Commissionerof the Department of Health and the Commissionerof the Department of Environmental Protection willcontinue in an active and vigorous fashion todischarge their responsibilities in this matter.Other than what is granted above, no additionalequitable judicial relief is necessary. ThisOrder constitutes a final judgment on theclaims asserted herein for equitable relief."
830520145
page 63/3/86
I realize that when the Commissioner of the Department of Healthsubmitted his testing and monitoring plan to the Court he an-ticipated that substantial financial and technical assistancein carrying out the plan would be forthcoming from the federalgovernment. I gather that federal funding has not yet beenobtained in anything approaching the needed amount, and thatit is'doubtful that full federal funding will ever belgranted.That lack of federal funding is regrettable, and I recognizeit poses substantial practical problems for the New Jersey De-partment of Health. However, the lack of federal funding doesnot alter the basic realities of this case, and it does notand should not relieve any New Jersey official of his responsibilitiesin this matter.
Perhaps the most basic reality of this case is that there isa fundamental human need to be met. Real people, innocent people,whose identities are known, have been exposed to dioxin andput at special risk. They have to be tested, monitored and,if necessary, treated. This is a responsibility of government.In view of the fact that the testing and monitoring may yielddata of general scientific significance in addition to helpingthe individual people involved, one would have hoped that thefederal government would be a major funder. However,if thefederal government is unwilling or unable to help, that doesnot excuse New Jersey from meeting its responsibility. We inNew Jersey have our own special traditions of caring, concernand decency, and they must be upheld. .'
The Commissioner of the Department of Health has appealed fromthat portion of the January 6 Order which requires him to "im-plement (with federal technical assistance and financial aid,if available; but without them, if they are not available) themedical testing and monitoring program previously approved bythe Court. ..." I point out that the program in question wasnot something proposed by the plaintiffs, or even fully accept-able to them. It was not something devised by the Court. Theprogram was proposed to the Court by the Commissioner. It rep-resented his evaluation of what needed to be done to meet thehuman health needs of this situation. I accepted it becauseit appeared to be a well-designed, well-reasoned response tothe health problem confronting all of us. The hoped-for federalfunding may have disappeared, but the problem has not. Giventhe importance of the problem, I do not think it representsinappropriate judicial activism or an inapproriate judicialintrusion into the affairs of the other branches of governmentto require the Commissioner of the Department of Health to implement
830520146
cage 73/3/86
his own program of medical testing and monitoring/ even thoughhe did not get the federal help he anticipated. Under all ofthe. circumstances of this case, I think it is right for theCourt to expect the Governor and the Legislature to figure outa wav to provide the several million dollars needed t* implementthe medical testing and monitoring program.
Very truly yours/
^jLys^-^Reginald Stanton, A.J.S.C.
Copies to:- Clerk of the Appellate Division (5 copies)- Case file
830520147
Prepared by the Court afterreceiving draft Order fromplaintiffs' attorneys
IRONBOUND HEALTH RIGHTSADVISORY COMMISSION, et al.,
Plaintiffs
-v-DIAMOND SHAMROCK CHEMICALCOMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
F I L E DJAN 08 1986
Reginald Sunton, A,J.S.C<
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYCHANCERY DIVISIONESSEX COUNTYDOCKET NO. C-3190-83E
Civil Action
ORDER GRANTING FINAL EQUITABLERELIEF AND TRANSFERRING DAMAGECLAIMS TO LAW DIVISION
This matter came before the Court on the motion of
Gordon and Gordon, P.A., attorneys for plaintiffs, for
an Order for Additional Interim relief in .the presence
of Messrs. Gordon and Gordon, P.A. by: Michael Gordon,
Esq. and Timothy S. Kaley, Esq., Attorneys for Plaintiffs;
Messrs. Hoagland, Longo, Oropcllo & Moran, by: Rhonda
S. Birnbaum, Esquire, Attorneys for Defendant, Aetna Casualty;
Messrs. Lowenstein, Sandier, Brochin, Kohl, Fisher, Boyland
& Meaner, by: Philip L. Guarino, Esq., Attorneys for Defendant,
S.E.A. Services, Inc., Messrs. McCarter & English, by:
Francis E.P. McCarter, Esquire, Attorneys for Defendant,
830520148
Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company; Messrs. Shanley £ Fisher,
by: Kenneth S. Kasper, Esquire, Attorneys for Defendant,
Richard F. Engel, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Attorney
for Defendant, Department of Environmental Protection;
Messrs. Dughi 6 Hewit, by: Patricia Massa Bass, Esquire,c
Attorneys for Defendant, Dr. Roger Brodkin. The question
of making final the equitable relief granted in this case
came before the Court on its own motion, after all counsel
were given the oppportunity to comment thereon.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, on this ^^ day of January,
1986, that Plaintiffs'Motion for Additional Interim Relief,
is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner of Department
of Health shall implement (with federal technical assistance
and financial aid, if available; but without them, if theyi
are not available) the medical testing and monitoring program
previously approved by the Court, and the Commissioner of
Department of Environmental Protection shall continue to
enforce the cleanup of dioxin contamination at an in the
environs of 80 Lister Avenue, Newark, New Jersey to the
greatest extent feasible within the bounds of known technology.
See below. *
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the matter is hereby transferred
- 2 -
830520149
to the Law Division, Essex County for. all further proceedings
on the damage claims asserted herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the stay on discovery is
hereby lifted. .«
"It is recommended to the Honorable John A. Marzutli,
A.J.S.C. that this matter be specially assigned to a single
judge for case management.
Plaintiffs' attorneys shall send copies of this Order
to all counsel of record within 7 days of the date hereof.
'REGINALD STANTONJudge of the Superior CourtAssignment Judge
* The Court is satisfied that the Commissioner of the
Department of Health and the Commissioner of ,the Department*
of Environmental Protection will continue in an active
and vigorous fashion to discharge their responsibilities
in this matter. Other than what is granted above, no additional
equitable judicial relief is. necessary. This Order constitutes
a final judgment on the claims asserted herein for equitable
relief.
- 3 -
830520150
Appendix A - Part II
Diamond Shamrock Site80 and 120 Lister AvenueNewark, Essex County
New Jersey
Responsiveness Summaryfor the
Proposed InterimRemedial Action Plan
August 1987
830520151
DIAMOND SHAMROCK SITE
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARYFOR THE
PROPOSED INTERIMREMEDIAL PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I. Selection of a Remedial Alternative . . 2
A. The Proposed Remedy . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. Excavation and Thermal Treatment . . . . . . 7
C. Alternative VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
SECTION II. General Comments and Questions . . . . 14
A. Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
B. Diamond Shamrock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
C. Conditions at the Site . . . . . . . . . . 15
D. Other Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
SECTION III. Summary of Written Comments . . . . . . 18
830520152
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
PROPOSED INTERIM REMEDIAL ACTION- PLAN FORTHE DIAMOND SHAMROCK SUPERFUND SITE
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODJuly 31, 1987 to August 31, 1987
Sections I and II below present a summary of the questionsand comments expressed by the public at the August 11, 1987,meeting on the Proposed Interim Remedial Action Plan for theDiamond Shamrock Superfund site. The questions and commentsare grouped into general categories or subjects. Section IIIis a summary of additional comments received in writing duringthe public comment period. All comments or questions arefollowed by responses representing the joint position of EPAand NJDEP,
I. Selection of a Remedial Alternative
A. The Proposed Interim Remedy - On-site containment withground-water pumping and treatment.
1. Community members stated concern that this "interim"solution would be permanent and that the site wouldbecome a hazardous waste disposal facility.
EPA and NJDEP do not believe that the proposed remedy willbe a permanent solution for the contamination at theDiamond Shamrock site. It is hoped that future studies ofthe means for excavation will show that''excavation can bedone in a safe manner with an acceptable impact on thecommunity. Both Agencies believe that siting problems fora hazardous waste thermal treatment unit can be resolved,given enough time. It is expected that that larger thermaltreatment units capable of properly treating dioxin wasteswill be proven effective and will become available for thetreatment of waste from this site. This expectation isbased on the rapid progress in thermal treatment technologywhich is currently being made.
Excavation and treatment options are not preferred at thistine, in part, because they cannot be imp l-r.~er.t5c in anexpeditious manner. Once the site is adequately controlledby the proposed remedy, however, the r.eec ~z remedy thesite expeditiously will no longer exist ana .TICre complexremedies such as excavation and thermal treatment can beconsidered in the necessary detail.
~l~ 830520153
2. Peter Montague expressed concern about whether aremedy similar to that proposed had been used onsimilar wastes. If so, where has this solution beenused before?
Containment remedies have been utilized at hazardous wastesites numerous times in the past, although the compositionof the waste, especially with respect to the dioxincontamination, at the Diamond Shamrock site is unique. Anoteworthy example of the successful implementation ofcontainment at a site with wastes similar to those atDiamond Shamrock is the Love Canal site in New York State.As with Diamond Shamrock, Love Canal is a setting in whichpesticides and dioxin-contaminated materials weredisposed.
A new cap was placed on the Love Canal site in 1984 andground-water pumping and treatment have been initiated.Extensive monitoring has subsequently been conducted andthe results indicate the effectiveness of the cap andground-water pumping and treatment in controlling off-sitemigration of contaminants.
3. Frank Sudol, representing Mayor Sharpe James, saidthat the proposed remedy does not adequately addressthe following:
a - detailed description of the FS to be conductedevery two years (what will be done to meet CERCLA
The Agency is currently developing guidance that willexplain procedures for conducting evaluations requiredby Section 121(c). After this guidance is available,it will be used in developing plans for the biennialFeasibility Studies called for by the Proposed Plan.Existing EPA guidance for conducting a FeasibilityStudy, entitled Guidance on Feasibility Studies underCERCLA , June 1985, provides much information that willstill be relevant when the first re-evaluation isperformed.
b - detailed proposal for public participation in thebiennial FS;
Current EPA regulations require -hat tr.ere re a publiccomment period en all Feasibility Studies developedunder the Superfund program. Therefore, the publicwill have an opportunity to review and comment en eachbiennial re-evaluation report. Additionally, NJDEPand EPA will be willing to meet with an advisorycommittee composed of officials and community
830520154
representatives in order to obtain input from thiscommittee and to keep the committee apprised of sitestatus.
c - details concerning the conditions which wouldtrigger additional studies;
Since re-evaluation studies are to be completed everytwo years, such studies will be in progress almostcontinually. NJDE? and EPA, therefore, do notanticipate the need for additional studies. TheAgencies have the discretion, however, to conduct orrequire such studies should the need arise.
d - the possibility of Newark receiving compensationfor accepting dioxin, as there is a precedent forthis;
EPA and NJDEP are aware of no existing statutrryauthority to compensate Newark for storing d:cxin.Thus, the Agencies cannot consider compensation atthis time.
e - detailed proposal for air monitoring;
Item 14 en page A-2 of the Proposed Interim RemedialAction Plan (the Proposed Plan) addresses the need forsuitable monitoring activities: "Implement suitablemonitoring, contingency, operation and maintenance...to ensure the protection of human health and theenvironment during and after the installation of theselected alternative, including a ground watermonitoring program." Detailed plans for thismonitoring will be included in the''Remedial Designdocument, including specific actions for airmonitoring. That document will be made available forpublic review and comment, prior to the initiation ofany on-site work.
f - details concerning how the carbon will be treatedafter it has cleansed the ground water;
Item 13 on page A-l of the Proposed Plan specifies howthe spent carbon and other sludges generated bywastewater treatment will be handled. It states thatactions taken as part cf the remedy will "placeon-site and cap the sludge generated from thewastewater treatment process until such time that analternative method of sludge management is approved."Spent carbon and sludges will probably be placed in aseparate on-site landfill cell to minimize potentialrelease of other on-site waste under the cap. Future
-3-830520155
options for these ground-water treatment wastes mayinvolve treatment at an off-site permitted facility.
g - plan for a bulkhead which could withstand the500-year flood;
The securing of the hazardous materials from floodingwill not be achieved solely by rebuilding thebulkhead. The integrity of the site will also bemaintained by the construction of the cap, which willbe designed to meet the rigorous requirements ofRCRA. We anticipate that the cap will be several feetthick and will contain highly impermeable materialswhich will not be penetrated by flooding or otherweather conditions. Although it is possible that theoutermost part of the cap may be damaged in the500-year flood, the contents under the cap would notbe threatened. The 100-year flood is used as thedesign basis for flood protection in a number ofapplicable Federal and State regulations
h - plans for additional security during the timeswhen the site will be unattended;
Item 14 on page A-2 of the Proposed Plan addresses theneed for "site security measures to ensure theprotection of human health and the environment duringand after the installation of the selectedalternative..." The site will be especially hazardousduring implementation of the remedy and there will bemuch construction equipment on the site. Securitymeasures, therefore, will be quite stringent duringthe implementation phase. Following completion of theselected remedy, the site will be much less hazardousto trespassers than is currently the case, and thesite will need less security. A detailed plan will beprepared later as part of the Remedial Design. Thesecurity plan will be available for review and commentby local citizens and officials.
i - details concerning the specific type of industrywhich might use the site once it is capped;
Although the Feasibility Study explored thepossibility, EFA and NJDEP have no intention -hatindustry should be located at this site. Building enthe cap would interfere wirh further remediation.
j - details concerning the contents of the 570 drumsmentioned in the FS;
Details concerning the con-cents of these drums arelocated in Section 5.10 of the document entitled "Site
-4-
830520156
Evaluation for 80 Lister Avenue," dated February1985. This document may be found in theadministrative record* for the site. Informationcurrently available indicates that more than half ofthe drums contain dioxin, which makes off-sitedisposal of most drums impossible at this time.
k - details on the Feasibility Study plans for dustcontrol, as well as air, ground-water andmeteorological monitoring while the buildings arebeing demolished.
EPA and NJDEP agree that air, water and meteorologicalmonitoring are necessary. These detailed plans willbe developed during the Remedial Design phase and willbe made available for public review and comment priorto the initiation of on-site work. EPA and NJDEP areconfident that this work can be done safely. Possibleapproaches for dust control would include removal ofcontaminants whenever possible prior to dismantlingbuildings, use of chemical dust suppressants and useof a fabric fence around the site.
4. Several of those who spoke said they believed that theproposed remedy was chosen because it is cheapest oreasiest for Diamond Shamrock to implement.
The reasons for proposing this remedy are outlined in theProposed Plan. After careful consideration, it wasdetermined by EPA and NJDEP that the proposed remedy is themost protective action available at this time. It was also
*Repositiories for the administrative record are:
United States Environmental Protection AgencyRegion II26 Federal PlazaNew York, NY 10278(Contact Lenore Berman at 212-264-2649)
New Jersey Department of Environmental ProtectionDivision of Hazardous Site Mitigation401 East State StreetTrenton, NJ 08625(Contact Janice Haveson at 609-984-3081)
Newark Public Library5 Washington StreetNewark, NJ 07101(NJ Reference Section, 201-733-7800)
-3- 830520157
the most cost-effective. The more costly alternatives hadmajor implementation difficulties which would require agreat deal of time, study and effort to'resolve (refer tosections B. and C. below for further discussion). Thedelays this would require are inconsistent with the need toremedy the site in a timely manner.
5. One community member wanted to know the constructionmaterials of the cap.
The cap is expected to be composed of several layers,including clay, a synthetic membrane liner, a flow zone(containing coarse sand and/or gravel) and a top layer oftopsoil and vegetation, as recommended by RCRA guidancedocuments. Other materials such as a geotextile may alsobe used to protect areas especially subject to erosion.Detailed plans will be developed in the Remedial Designphase and will be made available for public review andcomment. The concrete top layer originally proposed in theFeasibility Study has not been selected because it couldunnecessarily interfere with possible further remedialaction.
B. Excavation and Thermal Treatment
1. Mr. Montague expressed concern that incineration wasbeing turned down for insufficient reasons:
a - If the lack of a large incinerator is theproblem, use several small ones;
The lack of a large incinerator to treat site wastewas, and is, a factor in the decis.ion to recommend theproposed remedy, but it is one of many. Theincinerator most successful at burning dioxin-contaminated waste was the EPA mobile incinerator usedat the Denny Farm site in Missouri. That unitdemonstrated that it can achieve the required 99.9999%destruction and removal efficiency for dioxin. But,the use of a single mobile incinerator like the EPAunit, operating at the rate achieved at Denny Farm(about 12 tons per day), would take about 20 years toburn the amount of waste present at the DiamondShamrock site. Although a number of these units couldbe constructed, brought to the site and operatedsimultaneously, there would be difficulty in locatinga large number of small incinerators on a relativelysmall site. It also would not be cost effective touse small incinerators for a large project.Therefore, it would be preferable to use one or twolarger thermal treatment units, although such unitshave not yet been tested on dioxin waste. Since one
-5-830520158
or more mobile thermal treatment units may have to bedesigned, constructed, and tested prior to operationto clean up the Diamond Shamrock site, it is expectedto take at least six years to complete this remedy.
b - If airborne releases are a concern, we have cleanroom technology on a scale large enough to beginthe excavation. Mr. Montague also wanted to knowwhy it was all right to risk excavation inWilsonville, IL, but not in Newark. He asked fora list of communities where excavation has takenplace.
Further study is needed to address the concern ofairborne releases during excavation. The applicationof existing technology (e.g., "clean room" or dometechnology) at this site would take a great deal ofstudy and method design. There are no precedents forapplying these technologies to situations similar tothe possible excavation of the Diamond Shamrock site.Clean room technology (i.e., a room under negativepressure, the air exhaust filtered with activatedcarbon) has been used in a stationary building at theDenny Farm site in Missouri. This building is usedfor shredding and blending dioxin waste prior toincineration. However, this technology is notdesigned to be moved around a site being excavated.Although it may be possible to transfer the existingstationary technology to a mobile application atDiamond Shamrock, it would require lengthy study anddesign to do so.
The chief difference between the excavation beingconsidered for the Diamond Shamrock site and theexcavation conducted at Wilsonville, IL, is the levelof toxicity of the wastes involved. Dioxin is ordersof magnitude more toxic than the substances atWilsonville. The dioxin contained in air emissionsresulting from the excavation of the Diamond ShamrockSite would be the controlling.factor in the level ofrisk. A risk assessment performed for another sitewith high dioxin concentrations concluded thatdioxin-contaminated dusts generated from possibleexcavation would result in cancer risks greater than10~2 (i.e., one in one hundred) at properties as faraway as one-half mile from that site. The calculatedrisk resulting from high concentrations cf other tcxicchemicals was negligible compared to the risk fromdioxin.
A list of communities where excavation has taken placewould recruire an exhaustive search. Furthermore, a
830520159
complete list of locations where excavation has beenconducted is not germane to the selection of a remedyat the Diamond Shamrock site. Therefore, there are noplans to conduct a search and develop a list at thistime. There are, however, numerous examples ofexcavation, some with dioxin contamination, includingNewark, NJ.
c - What are EPA's and NJDEP's reasons for thinkingtechnology will advance to make Alternatives IV,V or VI feasible in the future, as indicated atthe top of page 4 of the Proposed Plan?
The section of the Proposed Plan, cited above, statesthat the implementation problems associated withAlternatives IV, V and VI may be resolved in thefuture. This resolution is not dependent solely upontechnological advancement. Numerous factors,including political decisions, siting, permits orother actions, may help solve problems tha^ have ledto the rejection of Alternatives IV, V and VI at thepresent time. Technology is, however, a significantpart of the decision not to select these alternatives.
Prior to the 1985 trial burn of the EPA mobileincinerator at the Denny Farm site, the successfulincineration of dioxin waste in accordance with RCRAretirements had not been demonstrated. Since thattime, successful trial burns have been conducted bytwo thermal treatment units developed by the privatesector. A number of companies have recently developedmobile incinerators inspired by the success of the EPAunit. Some of these newly developed units havegreater capacity than the EPA mobile unit and includemodifications intended to improve performance. Recentgovernment initiatives (the land disposal banregulations being phased in under RCRA and theimplementation of the 1986 Superfund Amendments, withits preference for treatment alternatives) shouldcontinue to increase the demand for incinerationcapacity and provide a continued economic incentivefor development of new treatment technology.Therefore, thermal treatment technology shouldcontinue to progress and to become more available inthe future.
-8-830520160
2. One citizen said that the community would opposeon-site incineration.
At the present time, EPA and NJDEP have no intention ofselecting on-site incineration. However, it has not beenruled out for the future. Refer to the response to commentI.C.9. below.
C. Alternative VI - Off-site Treatment or Disposal
1. Several community members and officials preferredAlternative VI to Alternative III because they feelthat the dioxin is being "dumped" in Newark.According to them, the only solution is to move it.
There are currently no existing permitted facilities atwhich to dispose of the waste, either in the Unites Statesor elsewhere. This does not mean that there will be noneavailable in the future. A large factor in the ProposedPlan was the need to find a solution that can beimplemented expeditiously; off-site disposal orincineration would take a very long time to develop andimplement, during which time the site would continue topresent a hazard to public health and the environment.
2. These people feel that Diamond Shamrock should comeand get the waste and store it on some other propertyowned by the company.
The difficulties in implementing off-site managementoptions are discussed in other responses in this section.These same difficulties would apply if off-site managementwere to occur on property owned by Maxus Energy Corporation(successor to Diamond Shamrock). Off-site managementoptions were evaluated and found less protective than theproposed remedy at this time. To limit off-site managementoptions to property owned by one company would makeoff-site management even more difficult by excluding otherproperties which may be better suited for managing thewaste.
3. These same people fear that the site will be uselessas long as contaminants remain on site.
EPA and NJDEP do net currently anticipate any use for thesite while the proposed remedy is in place.
~9~ 830520161
4. Two speakers felt that EPA/NJDEP were not reallyconsidering the option of sending the dioxin to anoff-site location.
There has been an intensive search for sites in the UnitedStates and abroad for a treatment, storage and disposalfacility that would accept waste from the Diamond Shamrocksite. No promising opportunities at existing facilitieshave been found. EPA and NJDEP have also looked intoconstructing a facility primarily for the purposes ofreceiving site wastes, but have determined that this cannotbe accomplished in a timely manner.
5. Mr. Sudol noted that if the waste were to betransported somewhere, EPA/NJDEP should taketransportation risk-reduction measures.
EPA and NJDEP agree that transportation risk reductionmeasures should be taken, if such a remedy is selected in-he future.
6. Mr. Montague asked that if Missouri accepts dioxin,why not send the contamination there?
Missouri has not accepted, and currently does not accept,dioxin wastes from outside the State.
7. Mr. Sudol cited technical advances in thermaltreatment and the fact that EPA did not adequatelyassess the possibility of shipping to Europe asreasons for revising the Feasibility Study to examineAlternative VI more carefully.
It is true that there have been significant advances inthermal treatment technology since the Feasibility Studywas completed in 1985. These advances were considered byEPA and NJDEP in developing the Proposed Plan. It shouldbe noted that the Record of Decision is based not only onthe Feasibility Study, but on the entire administrativerecord, which includes information that was not availableat the time the FS was prepared.
EPA and NJDEP have also explored the option of shippingsite wastes abroad. As a result, it has been concludedthat shipment of wastes from the Diamond Shamrock site toanother country for treatment or disposal has not beendemonstrated to be a viable option at this time. Noforeign facility which could accept the waste has beenidentified.
-10-830520162
EPA's Office of International Activities, to which exportsof hazardous waste from the United States must be reported,has indicated that dioxin wastes have not previously beenexported from the United States. A West German landfillwhich reportedly has disposed of dioxin wastes and receivedhazardous wastes from other countries was contacted by ITCorporation and by EPA. Both contacts indicated thatapproval to dispose of dioxin wastes from the U.S. at thisWest German facility is very unlikely.
The extreme difficulty in getting approval to export dioxinwaste to other countries is illustrated by experiences withCanada, which receives a substantial quantity of hazardouswastes, including Superfund wastes, from the U.S. TheCanadian government has opposed containment remedies atU.S. Superfund sites located near the Niagara River, whichis a source of Canadian drinking water. One of these sitesis Love Canal, which is a dioxin site. A proposal was madeby the New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation (NYSDEC) to conduct a trial burn for LoveCanal waste at an innovative thermal treatment unit (aplasma arc pyrolysis unit) developed and located inKingston, Ontario, Canada. Despite the fact that asuccessful trial burn would be a step toward the Canadiangovernment's wish for a permanent solution for the LoveCanal site, the Canadian government refused permission forshipment of a relatively small quantity of Love Canal wasteto Canada for the trial burn. Canada maintains that if theLove Canal trial burn is conducted, the thermal treatmentunit will have to be relocated in the United States. Giventhis failure to obtain export approval to Canada underrelatively promising circumstances, the prospect forapproval of export of Newark dioxin wastes does not appearpromising at this time.
Should the prospects for export of Newark dioxin wasteschange in the future, removal of the waste to anothercountry could be a viable option at that time.
8. Mr. Sudol also said that the fact that there is nolicensed facility should not be Newark's problem.
Section 121 of CERCLA requires that short-term risks betaken into account in evaluating remedial alternatives.The fact that there are no licensed off-site facilitieswhich could accept wastes from the site dees lessen theeffectiveness of off-site treatment cr disposal options incontrolling short-term risks. Unfortunately, this is onefactor which makes the alternative preferred by the City ofNewark less protective than the proposed remedy.
~ l l ~ 830520163
9. Mr. Michael Gordon, Esq., attorney for the IronboundHealth Advisory Commission, stated that off-siteincineration is the only alternative which meets JudgeStanton's order.
It is the position of EPA and NJDEP that the selectedremedy meets, for the present, the State's obligation underJudge Stanton's order. Judge Stanton's order requires thecleanup "to the greatest extent feasible within the boundsof known technology," Similarly, Section 121(b) of CERCLArequires the selection of a remedy that uses permanentsolutions and alternative treatment technologies orresource recovery technologies to the maximum extentpracticable. It is the position of EPA and NJDEP thatneither Judge Stanton's order nor Section 121(b) of CERCLAwere intended to maximize the use of technology as an endin itself, but as a means for ensuring the protection ofhealth and the environment. Since the alternatives whichhave a greater reliance on technology are less protectivethan the Proposed Interim Remedial Action Plan at thepresent time, the Proposed Plan does utilize knowntechnologies to the extent practicable or feasible forprotecting health and the environment.
10. Mr. Montague asked whether the Proposed InterimRemedial Action Plan adequately outlines the reasonssupporting the rejection of Alternative VI.
The Proposed Plan adequately summarizes the reasons for theremedial selection, including germane reasons for therejection of Alternative VI. The Record of Decision willprovide a more detailed discussion of the selectionrationale. Additional supporting information is containedin the administrative record.
-12-830520164
II. General Comments and Questions
A. Health
1. Members of the community urged additional healthscreening and medical testing. One community memberdescribed illnesses occurring in the neighborhood.
The New Jersey Department of Health did conduct a healthsurvey of Ironbound residents in June 1984. Current healthproblems or questions that may be related to the DiamondShamrock site may be brought to the attention of Dr.Liveright at New Jersey Department of Health, Division ofOccupational and Environmental Health, at 609-984-1863.The New Jersey Department of Health has expressed awillingness to continue to investigate health problems thatmay be related to the site, and to assist the Essex CountyDepartment of Environmental Health in its efforts.
B. Diamond Shamrock
1. A number of commentors maintained that DiamondShamrock is not doing enough to clean up the site.
Diamond Shamrock has complied with the requirements imposedon it by the State and Federal environmental agencies inaddressing site cleanup.
2. One person was concerned that no penalties had beenassessed against Diamond Shamrock.
The Superfund legislation does not provide EPA with theauthority to impose penalties for past actions whichresulted in the creation of uncontrolled hazardous wastesites. It does, however, impose financial liability onresponsible parties for the costs of the cleanup efforts atSuperfund sites. Diamond Shamrock has spent mil liens ofdollars on work it has done to clean up the site andsurrounding areas and has reimbursed EPA for almost$2 million of the Agency's costs.
3. Mr. Sudol stated his belief that violations of ECRAmay have occurred when Diamond Shamrock transferredproperty to a separately incorporated holding company.
Since ECRA is a State law and falls within Statejurisdiction, the matter has been referred to NJDE? forinvestigation. The alleged ECRA violations, however, areunrelated to the selection of a remedy for the site.
-13- 830520165
C. Conditions at the Site
1. A few people questioned what would happen to the 570drums and the cargo containers. One woman wanted toknow the condition of these drums and cargo containersand whether they would be checked before the nextFeasibility Study. Another speaker believes thatburying the drums will cause new problems.
The drums and storage containers that remain on the siteare inspected on a regular basis. Currently, they are inacceptable condition to prevent releases of containerizedmaterials to the environment. Any drum found to be leakingor whose integrity is otherwise impaired is quicklyrepaired. Waste from the drums will be stabilized (i.e.,the liquids will be solidified) before burial and will notadd significantly to the contamination. Those drums whichare found not to be dioxin-contaminated will be disposed ofoff-site.
2. A few local residents spoke of concern about theguards at the site. One person said that he had goneto the site at various times and had seen no guard.
The site is visited periodically by NJDE?. To date, aguard has always been found to be on duty. These periodicchecks will continue to ensure that the 24-hour securityservice continues to provide adequate site protection.
3. One community member said he felt that the cleanup ofthe Passaic River should not be left unaddressed.
Contamination in the Passaic River is beyond the statedscope of the Feasibility Study and Proposed Plan for 80 and120 Lister Avenue. A separate study has commenced and aFeasibility Study will be conducted to determine possibleclean up alternatives for the River. A public involvementprogram will be implemented for that activity to inform thelocal community of site activities and conditions andprovide opportunity for public comment.
4. Mr. Montague wanted to know exactly what, and howmany, chemicals are contaminating the site.
The list of chemicals identified to be present at the siteis extensive. This inf cr-aticr. can be obtained in thedocuments "Site Evaluation for 80 Lister Avenue" (February1985) and "Site Evaluation for 120 Lister Avenue' (May1985), which are part cf the administrative record for thissite.
-14- 830520166
D. Other Concerns
1. Mr. Victor DeLuca, from the Ironbound CommunityCorporation, felt that the response to the need forcleanup in Montclair, NJ was more rapid than theresponse at Diamond Shamrock and wanted to know why.
The problem in Montclair, although not without considerabledifficulties, is less complicated than the problem at theDiamond Shamrock site. As a result, the solution thereshould be easier to complete. It should be noted thatNJDEP and EPA have responded rapidly to the problemsassociated with the Diamond Shamrock site and that much hasbeen accomplished since dioxin was discovered in 1983.However, this highly complex situation is not amenable to aquick solution.
2. City Councilman Martinez expressed his concern thatNewark is being penalized for its "not in my backyard"sentiments.
This was not a consideration in the decision-making processfor the site. The available alternatives were evaluated,and the remedy selected, strictly on the basis cf sitecharacteristics and technical factors.
3. Mr. Montague expressed the opinion that the meetingwould have been more effective if the sound system andgeneral logistics had been checked beforehand.
EPA and NJDEP agree that the sound system and the meetingroom acoustics were less than desirable. Before reservingthe meeting room, the Ironbound Community Citizen's Groupwas asked its preference for the meeting location. Itspreference was the St. Aloysius Theater. Since nocomplaints had been received at the previous public meetingon this site held in the St. Aloysius Theater, it wasassumed that the facilities were acceptable. The Agenciesapologize for the noise of the air conditioners.
4. Mr. Gordon said he believed that EPA/NJDEP had failedto measure the "emotional factor" of the preferredalternative.
The proposed remedy is the alternative which is -ostprotective of public health and the environment andrepresents a rr.ajcr improvement over the current situation.If Alternative VI were selected, the emotional responsefrom the public might be more favorable at first. However,the implementation problems associated with Alternative VIwould result in later disappointments. The Agencies willcontinue to stress the advantages of the proposed remedy.
"1D~ 830520167
It is hoped that the community will appreciate the positiveaspects of the Proposed Plan.
5. One person expressed the opinion that NJDEP has donenothing to remedy the situation at the site.
Over the course of the last four years much work was doneto remove contamination from the community and place it onthe site, where people will not be in contact with it. Theproposed remedy will further contain the release of toxicsubstances into the environment. Since 1983, NJDEP and EPAhave made major strides in controlling risks from the siteand will continue to do so.
6. Mr. Montague spoke of his concern that EPA and NJDEPhad reasons for the proposed selection of a remedialalternative which are being hidden from the public.
There are no hidden reasons for selection of the proposedremedy. For example, both the fact sheet distributed atthe meeting and the Proposed Plan clearly state that amajor disadvantage of Alternative VI is the problem ofsiting a thermal treatment unit. All reasons for theselection of a remedy at the Diamond Shamrock site arefound in the Proposed Plan and will be presented again, inmore detail, in the Record of Decision.
830520168
Ill. Summary of Written Comments
The following is a summary of written comments and questionsreceived during the public comment period, July 31, 1987through August 31, 1987, and the responses to them. Commentsgiven at the public meeting and reiterated in writing have notbeen repeated here but are addressed in the previous sections.
A. In a letter dated August 31, 1987, Maxus Energy Corporation:
expressed its concern "about the delay in the approvalof a remedial action plan which would enable theclosure of the site and elimination of the interimmeasures."
EPA plans to sign a Record of Decisions for this site,which would constitute formal selection of a remedy, in thevery near future. Once a remedy is selected, EPA plans toexpedite its implementation.
urged EPA and NJDEP to revise the proposed timing ofthe biennial re-evaluation of the remedy from everytwo years to an "as-needed" basis. The remedy wouldthen be re-evaluated "only if it proves to beineffective in removing and controlling the movementof contaminants which pose an unacceptable risk to thepublic..."
CERCLA requires that not only releases, but also the threatof releases, be remediated. Even if the Proposed Planworks soundly, there is still a threat of release whichshould be examined regularly. Therefore, EPA and NJDEPhave no plans to change the requirements of there-evaluation of the selected remedy every two years.
stated its belief that the acceptable levels ofdioxin at the site should be reviewed. Currently, "anaction level of less than one part per billion (ppb)in the soil has been shown to.be an acceptablestandard for public or residential areas, with a levelof 5-7 ppb being the NJDEP and EPA standard forindustrial sites." Maxus recommended that theacceptable level of dioxin be set at 5-7 ppb ratherthan 1 ppb at the Diamond Shamrock site, since thesite is industrial.
At the present time, it is impossible to predict withcertainty the future land use at the site. Therefore, EPAand NJDEP will require a 1 ppb standard to protect thepossibility for all potential land uses.
830520169
3. In his letter of August 17, 1987, Michael Gordon statedthat, "The DEP decision not to require site stabilization(alternative 3) in conjunction with a requirement that anoff-site incinerator be sited, designed and constructedpursuant to a detailed time schedule, is arbitrary andunreasonable."
EPA and NJDEP have not established that excavation can beconducted with acceptable impact on health and theenvironment. Furthermore, EPA and NJDEP do not know atthis time whether off-site incineration will be preferableto on-site incineration or to some other remedy at somepoint in the future. This will depend on factors such asthe future availability of off-site facilities permittedfor dioxin, the ability to resolve siting difficulties inthe future, the cost differences between on-site andoff-site incineration, the performance of the interimremedy (which would dictate the urgency of undertakingadditional rerr,ediai action), etc. These factors can bebetter evaluated in the future. Therefore •• - rrematureto select off-site incineration or any other ;r •:•. as thesecond phase of a remedy which begins by s~ar,i'.:._ ing thesite by implementing the proposed containme:.' p.an.
C. The mayor of Newark, Mr. Sharpe James, in his letter ofAugust 18, 1987:
stated his belief that NJDEP will soon "fail to meetits own recommended biennial timetable. TheFeasibility Study on which the public meeting wasbased, was dated December, 1985. Almost two yearshave already lapsed without any of the alternativesbeing implemented. Therefore, per..DEP's commitment,the biennial review process of feasible disposalalternatives should be initiated before December,1987."
The biennial timetable as described in the Proposed Planhas not yet begun. It is scheduled to begin * »\; yearsafter the selected remedy has been.installed Howe/er, asnoted in answer to question 7, this Record ~:~ Uec:s-.;n isnot based solely upon the feasibility study cut ?.. sc, uponadditional information, not available at tr.e -.me the FSwas prepared, contained in the Administr = *. '.'•'•? R^.cri.
stated that the proposed containment plan cannot beimplemented until it meets the siting criteria of theMajor Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Act. The planmust be approved by the Siting Commission.
The Major Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Act applies only~o commercial hazardous waste management facilities, =ndices not apply to the Proposed Plan.
S" 830520170
D. In her letter dated July 27, 1987, Ms. Kathleen Craigcommented that the proposed containment plan "is only a wayof putting off the inevitable." She enclosed someliterature concerning a recently developed thermaltreatment system (Ogden Environmental Services' circulatingbed combustor).
EPA and NJDEP are aware of the Ogden combustor, which hasnot yet been demonstrated for dioxin wastes. However, itssuccess in treating PCB wastes makes it promising i.orfuture use with wastes from the Diamond Shamrock site.Responses to other comments on thermal treatment are alsorelevant to Ms. Craig's comment.
Although Ms. Craig did not elaborate on what she means by"putting off the inevitable," EPA and NJDEP recognize thatthe proposed containment remedy requires continuedoperation and maintenance, and may require additionalremedial action should it become less effective with thepassage of time. The proposed remedy includes provisionsfor operation, maintenance, periodic re-evaluation, andadditional remedial action, if appropriate. EPA and NJDEPhave determined that the proposed containment remedy iscurrently the most protective of the available remedialalternatives.
E. In his letter dated September 6, 1987, Peter Montaguesubmitted written comments elaborating on the commentswhich he made at the August 11, 1987, public meeting.
Because his written comments were submitted after the closeof the public comment period, a response to Mr. Montague swritten comments is not provided in this responsivenesssummary. However, Mr. Montague's oral comments have beenaddressed in a previous section of this document. Toaddress Mr. Montague's written comments in this documentwould delay the Record of Decision and the initiation ofremedial action. EPA and NJDEP have decided thatMr. Montague's written comments do not merit any change inthe selected alternative. However, NJDEP intends to send awritten response directly-to Mr. Montague.
-19- 830520171
APPENDIX B
Site Evaluation Analytical Results
830520172
SITE INVESTIGATIONAMBIENT AIR RESULTS FOR D1OXIN
—««,. ,-..,. ,-,,-« -..* •:"£ '--•' ':0vrr 9:0'r 9 .vr -v -.».9-2J-84 10-3-84 10-4-84V-i*-o-« ^ *• -- - ••"
9-10-B* »-ti-irt , .- - - „.,, ---. _«••»._-JlU-I-K -0181- -0182- -0414-
PARAMETERS
„«„ ,»«., -.on' •««•> -«> '" "D<"°' -D<<"Dioiin
00woenrooCO
SITE INVESTIGATIONAMBIENT AIR RESULTS FOR PNA
DATE AND SAMPLE ID
PARAMETERS
PNAl (ni/»3)BeniodiKluoranthene
Benio(a)pyreneBento(g,h,i)peryleneIndenoU ,2,3-c,d)pyrene
(Coronene)
PhenanthreneTriphenyleneKento(b)fluoranthene
AnthracenePluoranthene
PyreneBenco(a)anthracen«
QQ Ben(.o(ath)anthr«ceneCO ^2 Cnrytene
J5 PeryleneO
2^Resul t s not a v a i l a b l e •• of February 14, 1985.
9-10-84-0144-A-K
0.510.540.70
> 0.4?
0.080.381.00
O.Ob
1.361.190.78
2.050.73
7.16
9-11-84-0181-
0.630.671.080.33
0.380.36
. 0.86
0.051.181.16
0.652.340.635.75
9-12-84-0182-
1.013.012.10
0.71
0.091.501.620.216.66
1.760.562.900.54
*
9-17-84-0414-
0.80
0.901.961.08
0.280.380.97
0.051.011.130.76
2.790.586.05
9-19-84-0597-
1.412.50
2.351.97
1.070.861.970.17
2.692.42
1.45*
1.3912.02
9-21-84-0711-
0.72
1.66
2.101.07
0.46
0.31
0.910.06
1.071.47
0.591.270.535.70
9-24-84-0714-
1.24
2.28
1.090.94
0.890.68
1.66
0.112.261.861.22
2.72
1.1?11. 99
9-25-B4-0843-
1.351.102.551.56
0.7?0.801.550.092.012.011.28
2.391.32
10.40
10-3-84-1084-
0.73
0.76
1.63
0.66
0.29
0.29
0.52
0.0? '
0.54
0.53
0.37
1.04
0.333.?4
10-4-84-1?41-
1.35
2 .791.66
3.50
0.84
0.59
1.89
0.12
2.121.54
1.38
7 .11
I . I ?
15.6?
1in
2
S 2 5
S 8 = S ~
- 9 £
s o - r ?
Or»
<
O
r- -
^
CO
•« O
N
.0
O
;i *
*"^
^^
g si
5 ~
S
z o -
ft -'
v v
vX
U
O a.
< S
S
• ^
* o
U U
. it
a-i O
<••«
^
• •
•
R e *
=5 5 S 5 s•
•»
»
••
-<
-.
g5 i?
&u14B<
TO
2
S^
7 e
«"
7V
ff> '
V
V
V
V
•« I
• '
w
e»
»>
ff»
W
.Q"
**
'-' S
M
—
•
"• S
SM
"^
*
•
^<
•
••
**
— S
"^
e—
e
er
i"
"^
l|
V
VV
t
rt
**
r*
VV
o^• i
•
0«
m
<M
CM
^«
J.«o ^
~r>
"I
n
rf> 0.
e—
S
^
O -•
»
BM
"*
«,
O
v V
V
«M
er
<<
V*
U•J-
1B
<
—
_.«
^ ^
«
_«
<^
^I
M
05 ^
2 « 2
K. " " 2.7
2 r
,v
75
o«
-^
QS 01
k«
«i iy
^-
«l
Tl
-0
«
-l-\
C
—
—
C
•O
t
—
W
C
41 k
H
tl
« -—
>
s w
ve
eo
M•
e c
c —
* —
» —
U
CO
»
l tl
JC
M £
C
>
s_j
^«. xi
M u
c w
y
£0.
— *
1
O
C
V
i --
53
-
O
k
V —
-
C _
0
t
f• .-
O2
x>
s»
sk
Iv
>io
• k
_o
ee
eo
<-
' e
•C »
i»
lO
JC
kO
«O
—
»
- O
gk
l -
OC
—
CI
O«
~£
<-
£I
OP
•
-«
!£
.«
——
-—
U
^,
1<
«
J
UM
Uk
£9
«l
9«
.H
.E
—e
wu
«l
BH
«w
ck
6J
<
-1
*
VI
1
V»
>»
1-2
•£
t-
«
•»
S
r,
6
0-
<
<
V0
0.
0.
•Vue•i«k•I•rfettk•jMI•0*s\<0w'••.!*»uV*rfV•wkV£'f1830520175
; 3- s•- « ~
0
r>
-
J
2.i.
* "I
£ *
» «
<
ufV«*i<
ESil= s s
8 o830520176
NEAR-SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE 2,3,7,8-TCDD REANALYSIS SUMMARY
STATIONNUMBER
«
A-2-CA-2-C
A-5-CA-S-C
F-5-EF-5-EF-5-E
C-3-I
C-3-L
C-4-AC-4-AC-4-A
C-5-FC-5-F
H-2-HH-2-HH-2-H
H-5-F
H-7-FH-7-FH-7-F
DEPTH(inches )
0-66-12
0-66-12
0-66-1212-24
0-6
0-6
0-66-1212-24
0-66-12
0-66-1212-24
12-24
0-66-1212-24
ELEVATIONCODE
100101
100101
100101102
100
100
100101102
100101
100101102
102
100' 101102
INITIALRESULTS
(ppb)
296289
500460
268247
>19,000
1,110
261
395>3,130>1,515
325359
>1,5861,180286
336
>5,768>1,550231
CORRECTIVE *ACTION
1 gram1 gram
1 gram1 gram
1 gram1 gram
1 gram, dilution 10:1
1 gram
1 gram
1 gram1 gram, dilution 3:1
1 gram
1 gram1 gram
1 gram1- gram1 gram
1 gram
1 gram, dilution 5:11 gram1 gram
IC-AHAl. I 3 l .
RESULTS(ppb)
326330
to cO3 J
453
470394
19,500
1,010
310
2763,6901,770
361494
2,3901,230510
IP tJO J
9,0502,730200
830520177
SUMMARY OF DETECTED VOLATILE OHCANICSNEAK-SURFACE SOILS
(Expressed as ng/kg or ppb)
0-6 INCHES 12-24 INCHES
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Ethyl benzene
Methylene chlorideTelrachloroethane
TolueneTrichloroelhene
Acetone
2-Bulanone
Carbon di sulfi de
2-Hexanone
Tolal xylenes
'.NTRATION RANGE
21
84,000-3938-
1,500-14860--
5,000-581,400-130
--
NUMBERPOSITIVERESULTS
1
2
1
0
21
1
0
0
13
2000
NUMUERSAMPLESANALYZED
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
2121
CONCENTRATION RANGE
23,000-11
170,000-22
38,000-13
60,000
130,000-21
36,000-1,300
2,000,000-7
92.000-68
9,200-51
7
36,000
310,000
NUMBERPOSITIVERESULTS
3
6
2
I
21
2
61
156
1
1
1
NUMBERSAMPLESANALYZED
21
21
21
21
21
21
2)
2\
21
21
21
21
71 00COoen10o—k,-400
5enit] o• x
> u:liJ
—
NJ
tn to {-
>• .n
.r, <o
IN
r"i —
i IN
«o
r*U
J 3C
—
-J—
3
tn <
U
Z O
Z
LLJ
Oo
o?
—
o
o
o
111 § S
S
5 - -»
- o "
2
^^
gU
-<
_ w S
M
ae >
^w
u — 2
5« H
3¥ r S
io1C
1|5
02
S
°S
S°
"
*«
.—
•
«
uo
<S
I
H
' '
<
00
ae 0
0P
eo
—
z •
•U
"»
•*•
Uic«l
• g
5: *
s ^
- £
1
"
8 1
<u 5
v
¥
'.
f£
§
£ 5
S "I Si-
fe = IS*
? ~- 58
830520179
4,4'-DOT
4,4 '-DDE
4,««''-dbD
Alpha-Endosulfan
Dal apon
2,4-D
2,4,5-T
SUMMARY OP DETECTED HERBICIDES, PESTICIDES, AND PCB'sNEAR-SURFACE SOILS
(Expressed as pp./kR or ppb)
0-6 INCHES
CONCENTRATION RANGE
3,500,000-62093,000-20
13,000-1,700
8,90070,000-190
7,600-7402,300-190
NUMBERPOSITIVERESULTS
191431
y10
9
NUMBERSAMPI.ESANALYZED
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
12-24 INCHES
CONCENTKATION RANCK
,090,000-1,400
37,000-1,200
164,000-1,200
1,400
29,000-420
83,000-190
86,000-490
NUMBERPOSITIVERESULTS
15
8
5
1
913
10
NUMBERSAMPLESANALYZED
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
00WOOlro
00O
BORING SOIL SAMPLES2,3,7,8-TCDD KESULTS
(Mt/li| or ppb)
SAMPLEELEVATION
CODE
DEPTH(inches) A-2-K A-3-C C-7-C
STATION NUMBERS
0-l-F F-7-B 1-2-L 1-5-A I-I-K
100101
102
109
201
0-66-12
12-24
above lilt
• lit(6.ND
(17.
54.336.072.50.365-8.5')(0.07)7-14.7')
19.7IB. 87.4
ND (0.02)(6.J-8.0*)
ND (0.3)(11.0-13.0')
130784
24771.8
(6.5-8.0')2.1
(10.0-12.0')
(6.ND
(10.
61.6
7.54.70.785-8. 7')(0.06)7-17.7*)
7,560
109
6872.4
(6.5-8*)
0.49(10.0-17.0')
7,700
21893.612.1
(13.5-15.5')7.7
( J7 . 0-19.0')
573883830
70.9(13. 5-15. 2')
noiMiple
3503,510
59.35.8
( / -8 .5 1 )
7.8(13.5-15.7
00COoen10o_^00
•38K
JZSO
C8t
i »
B s
ri | f » r
H
n
x0
*
' T
-
aM
OO
^•
o«
»-
<—
-
««
• S
in
-a
oa
3«
»3
-|
»"
»<
TI
»8
—
3 a
*O
»
1»
3
0
n
3
•*
r ft
3
" —
ft
a*
eft
^a
—
I 5 5 i s
"" it
3 =
5
i oM
m
i »
XM
.
«.
*•
- -4
m
w
• -
• •»
j«
v
- o
>•
»
- o
o
>S
^§
?8
-8
88
? ^
0 =
i i i S !
o
•*
o
^ o m
„. i 11
Sis
---
--»
---*
•»
• =
5s i
"• m
«>
.......... r|z
sq
° §
8 \f
° '
-?
8 8
' §
§ 8
?»
i O
T
'
O v>
—
o o
n rr x -4 i 1 i M ?
00WOtnroo
SUMMARY or DETECTED HERBICIDES, PESTICIDES, AND PCS'.IN SOIL BORINGS
(EiprtJied • » Ml/ht or p|.b)
0-* IMCMCS
CONCENTRATION RANGENUMBERPOSITIVERESULTS
NUMBERSAMPLES
ANALYZED
17-74 INCURS
CONCENTRATION KANCENUNBEH
POSITIVERESULTS
ABOVE SILT
NUMBERSAMPLES
ANALYZEDCONCENTRATION RANGE
NUHBER NUMIUNPOSITIVE SAMI-l.tSRESULTS ANALYZKII
4,41-DDT
4.4'-DOC
4.4'-DDO
Bcll-BMC
ll«l*pon
7.4-0
7,»,VT
7.4-DC
Dinoxb (DNir)
10.000-17.000U, 900-4,50078,000-2,000110,000-81021,000-1601,700-210120,000-74014.000-94
-
590-210
>tJ2t1a•0
7
•aaaa•aaaa
],200,000-41,000
297,000-7,400
182.000-1,900
120,000
94,000-100
I,400-100
U.000-110
14,000-9)
1,400
1tJ1>)17
1
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
UO, 000- 100
l.iOO-790
170.000-47
100.000
-
IbO
7,800,000-140
490.00O-6 10
no-
4
4
510
1
7
J
10
a8
8
aaaA
8
a8
00
SUMMARY OF DETECTED BASE/NEUTRAL/ACID ORGANIC COMPOUNDSNEAR-SURFACE SOILS
(Expressed as pg/kg or ppb)
2 , 4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Di methyl phenolBenroic Acid
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
Acenaphthene
1,2,4-TrichlorobenreneHexachlorobenzene1.2-Di chlorobenrene
1.3-Di chlorobentene
1.4-Dichlorobentene
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
B i s ( 2 - e t h y l h e x y l )phtha la te
[)i -N-bul yl phihal al e
H o n z o ( a ) an th racene
0-6 INCHES 12-24 INCHES
CONCENTRATION RANCE
1,300,000-1,300
3,600,000-980
1,80015,000,000-870
25017,000-1,500110,000-560
520-230
1,400-4706,100-330
2001,300-310
47,000-910
NUMBERPOSITIVERESULTS
5
7
01
512
1320
351303
NUMBERSAMPLESANALYZED
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
71
n
21
CONCENTRATION KANCK
1,700,000-8,700
2,500,000-870
1,700,000
7,500,000-2,500
19,000
720,000-3,200
9,000
610
1,300
64,000-670
8,200
310,000-5,100
370,000-2,000
4 / , 0 0 0 - b l O
NUMIiKRTOSITIVERESULTS
4
8
1
0
5
0
1
9
1
1
1
6
1
3
NUMBERSAMPLES
A N A L Y Z E D
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
?1
21
21
21
nn
00COo01100
n
SUMMARY OP DETECTED INORGANIC PARAMETERSIN SOIL BORINGS
(F.ipreord •• VR/fcl or ppb)
0-4 INCHESNUMBER
U-74 INCHES
CONCEWTHATIWI RANCt
Artc,nic
Copper
Nirkcl
Silver
Zinc
Tol«l
11-0.2
20-1.*
3-0. J
72-1.9290-4*
1,400-13
11-0.1
9VIJ0.97-0.2
3.900-110
1.7-0.2J
13-0.2
8 B
a •0 >
a >a Ba Ba Ba *• '* Ba •a •a •
S^S CONCENTRATION RANGE
ANALYZED
76-2.13.7-0.7
7.1-0.)
40-1)
7)0-87
7,)00-180
7.6-0.*
170-1)
0.9-0.)
17-0.7
ABOVE SILT
NUMBERCONCENTRATION RANGE
B
B
8
B
8
8
4
1.4-0.1
b.»00-74
11,000-19
I .8-0.4
l.WO-0.3
NUHRMIPOSITIVK SAMPU.SRESULTS ANAI.YZUI
6
ai6
8
aB
7
8
>
aB
7
B
8
B
B
8
8
B
nnB
B
B
B
00COoenroo00en
98LO
Z90C
9 MY
c
*
w
w
o
• K
it*
* *
»
i *»
Z.
>
o
i i
i a*
•
• a
- a
i r>
•w»
i
o
o
o
— n
*•
•
wo
o
• 3
" •>
7 »
• —
-•
—
e
T i
•»
i —
—
—
i
• •
a«
««
i—
-i
a
r -4
n
o-
4"
—•
•a
r»
»o
ot
'*
^
3-
•<
i»
« 3"
—
—
—
3
^
—
3>
-•
—
O
—•
«3
*o
oe
»o
n*
n
o •o
n
? "
J 3
3 3
* J
Z J
Z
3
? Z
S *
ff f
» 2
5 2
T 2
S<4
3
aa
»«
io
o *
—
e«
»
n
M
— 3
g-
^ 3
^^r
3
53
3"
3 J
2.
?•
* -
* ?
3I
\It
8w
N*
^ w«
C!
« r
.-
.°
.• .
- .-
3
—
-.X
.W
—
S
"—
'-a
— 2
"o
2
«•
•* «
8 X
, 2
-_
? i •„
« -
?
8 ?
5
§ 8
i. 8
e 8
> i 8
f S i..i f
5S
w
X
>
*
y» *
w
»
5
85
88
58
5 n
5
S—
m
vt
o
O
O.
Id =
. -_
^
<J
"i-*
-;;.-;
•;•;
•*
\ \\\
1 ° I § s
§
i
* I
O
5 —
S
x n
r: -
t a
n u>
C —
m
=">
S *
«
>
_ V
»
S
, i ?
I -: -
; , -
-. o o
gi
i .*
8 8
8
8
-'
a I
H
(Continued)
17-74 INCURS ABOVE SILT
B«nio(«)«nlhr«cene
t*nto(*)prrcnc
B*nio(b)l I uorcnthcnc
Chryienc
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phcncnlhrciwln<eno(l .7.J,-CO
Pyrenc
fentrl Alcohol
Dibento(ur*n
7-Melh)rln»pl»lh«l«n«
0-» INCHES
NUMBEROONCEMTtATION RANGE POSITIVE
RESULTS
0
0
0
0
9)0 1
7,100
1,800-1)0-
8,100-270
I.JOO
2,600
1
)
0
J
0
11
NUMBERSAMPLESANALYZED
8
8
8
aa8
B
aa8
B
8
CONCENTRA1 1 ON RANGE
1.900
1,600
7,400
4,700
1,700
4,700
14,000-770
1,400
18,000-1, 100
70,000
7,100
8.000-8)0
NUMBERPOSITIVERESULTS
1
1
1
1
1
)
1
)
1
1
)
NUMBERSAMPLES
ANALYZED
aaaaaa8
B
B
aaa
CONCENTRATION RANGE
1,900
7.700-1)0
460-470
41,000
14,000-1,600
NUNHF.RPOSITIVERESULTS
0
0
1
0
0
0
7
0
7
1
0
4
mmiiKswin.i
AN/Vl.f/
ab«»88
B
B
aaB
a
00COoen10o00
SUMMARY OF 2,3,7,8-TDDDFOR GROUND WATER
WELLNUMBER
i
2
34
5678
LOCATION
I-2-L
I-5-AI-7-K
C-7-C
A-2-KA-3-CD-l-FF-7-B
SAMPLINGDATE
10-09-84
10-09-84
10-10-84
10-09-84
10-09-8410-09-8410-09-8410-09-84
RESULTS(ppb)
0.687.90.0490.20
ND(O.OOS)0.0120.0160.72
SAMPLINGDATE
10-30-8410-30-84
10-30-8410-30-84
10-30-8410-30-84
10-30-8410-30-84
RESULTS(ppb)
O.S64.30.030.74
0.00590.0086
ND(0.024)
1.1
SAMPLING RESULTSDATE (ppb)
12-14-84 10.4
ND - not detected at the indicated ( ) detection limit.
830520188
SUMMARY OK DKTECTEI) INORGANIC PARAMETERSWELL WATER SAMPLES
(Expressed AS wg/1 or ppb)
10-09-84 10-30-84
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryl 1 ium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si Iver
Zinc
Total Cyanide
Total Phenol
CONCENTRATION RANGE
0.003-0.151
0.015-0.621
0.003-0.008
0.002-0.029
0.02-0.73
0.091-1.3
0.18-47
0.001-0.16
0.06-0.30
ND
0.003-0.007
0.247-17
0.01-0.35
0.03-102
NUMBERPOSITIVERESULTS
7
8
5
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
4
8
7
8
NUMBERSAMPLES
ANALYZED
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
CONCENTRATION RANGE
0.001-0.024
0.028-0.629
0.002-0.010
0.002-0.023
0.08-1.1
0.206-2.9
0.44-14
0.002-0.066
0.06-0.42
0.007
0.002-0. 015
0.864-17
0.01-0.63
0.03-78
NUMBERPOSITIVERESULTS
8
8
/
8
8
8
8
8
8
1
5
8
7
8
NUMBERSAMPLES
ANALYZED
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8305201
00(O
SUMMARY OF DETECTED HERBICIDES, PESTICIDES, AND PCU'sWELL WATER SAMPLES
(Expressed as wg/1 or ppb)
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE
A, 4'-ODD
Alpha-endosulfan
2 , 4 - D
2,4 ,5-T
2,4-DB
Dinoseb (DNBP)
CONCENTKAT10N RANGE
17-22,000
17-M
13-13,000
ND
6.9-27,000
A70-3,600
300
4.2
NUMBERPOSITIVERESULTS
4
2
5
0
6
A
1
1
HUM UK ItSAMPLES
ANAI.Y7.I 1)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
CONCENTRATION RANUK
14-2,770
7-U
7-1,390
1,240
74-20,000
68-3,500
ND
ND
NUMBERPOSITIVERESULTS
A
2
4
1
4
A
0
0
NUMBERSAMPLES
ANALYZED
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
00WOcnrooto
SUMMARY OP DETECTED VOLATILE ORCANICSWELL UATEK SAMPLES
(Expressed AS |ig/l or ppb)
10-30-84
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-Dichluroethane
1,1,l-Trichloroethane1,1-DichloroethaneChloroform1,1-Dichloroethanelran«-l,2-Dich1oro«theneEthylbenzene
Melhylene chloride
Tctrachloroethene
TolueneTr ichloroethene
V i n y l chloride
AcetoneIr'-Bulanone
Carbon di sul f ide
A-Methyl -2-peniamine
Total xy lcnes
INTRATION RANGE
3.0-3,900
14-8,500
1,700
410
5
20-230
ND
33-360
44-740
6-12,000
2-5
7-1,100
15-230
26-88
29-540
870
2-65
3,300
42-960
NUMBERPOSITIVERESULTS
8
6
1
1
1
2
0
2
3
8
2
6
2
2
3
1
2
1
4
NUMBERSAMPLES
ANALYZED
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
CONCENTRATION RANGE
10-7,900
4-23,000
2,000
1,500
190
19-240
53
30-1,300
43
3-7,400
2-43
55-3,300
9-280
24-220
21-520
180-430
Nl)
1,800
U-b70
NUMBERPOSITIVERESULTS
7
7
1
1
1
3
1
2
2
8
3
5
2
2
3
2
0
1
4
NUMBERSAMPLES
ANALYZED
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
B
8
ooCO0enro0_»iCO~*
SUMMARY OF DETECTED BASE/NEUTRAL/ACID OKCANICSWELL WATER SAMPLES
(Expressed as ug/1 or ppb)
10-09-84 10-30-84
2 , 4,6-Trichlorophenol2-Chlorophenol2,4-DichlorophenolPhenolUenzoic Acid2-Melhylphenol4-Methyl.phenol2,4,5-TrichlorophenolAcenaphthene1,2,4-Trichlorobentenellexachlorobenzene2-Chloronaphthalene1.2-Dichlorobentene1.3-Dichlorobcneene1.4-DichlorobenteneFluorantheneNaphthaleneHi a(2-ethylhexyl)phlhalateDi-N-butylphlhalateBento(a)anthraceneAnthraceneKlooreneI 'henanlhrene1'yreneHenzyl alcohol? - M e l h y ) n « p h l h a I m e
CONCENTRATION RANGE
1,700-11,000290-4,600160-48,00036-3,700
250ND
39-6656-8,800
ND200NDND
11-390ND
110-59015
10-3205512NDND10
2-343-198,0007-760
NUMBERPOSITIVERESULTS
335510250100303141100I2314
NUMIIKRSAMPLESANALYZED
88888888888888888888888888
CONCENTRATION RANGE
290-1,90011-1,600
J70-!>8,00043-600
ND24ND
38-26,00030
9-890770-860
53-98013-200
6-1,2003-12011-480
3-75884J2
3-1105-46
4.3003-900
NUMBERPOSITIVERESULTS
34430104132142453311115516
NUMBERSAMPLESANALYZED
88688888888888886888888888
00woUlN>O(O10
SUMU&Y OP IBCDTT DIOITM COHCEVTHTIOVSII GEOUXD MATE! II ClACIOFLUVHL BAID8
WELL SAMPLIKC USULT8NUMBER DATE (ppb)
MU-2B 06/17/85 4.2 * 10~*KW-7B 06/17/85 3.4 * If"3MV-10D 06/05/85 VD (<1 x 10"J ppb)(«)
(*)V«lue reported in parentheiii ii the detection limit of a saaple reportingnondetectable.
830520193
OKNMD VATBI OCCAMIC PtlOBITY POLLUTANTANALYTICAL 1BSULTS
(MI/I)
MONITORING WELLS AND SAMPLING DATES
ooOU110O<O£k
COMPOUND
BenzeneChlorobenceneMethylene ChlorideTolueneAcetone
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol2-Chloro phenol2 ,A-DichlorophenolPhenol2 , A , 5-Tr ichlorophenol1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene1,2-Dichloro benzene1,3-Di chlorobenzene1 ,4-DlchlorobenzeneBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateDi-N-Octylphthalate
Anil ine
2-Me thy 1 naphthalene
MW-2B
06/17/83
1,2009,100280850ND
1,300160
7,200290
1,300NDNDND200NDNDND
ND
MW-7B
06/17/85
2*720120ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5ND
22825ND
2
MV-10A
12/14/R4
2001,600640ND
550.0
NDNDND
ND
ND
ND
260ND810ND
ND
9,300ND
NU-10A
01/08/85
160570170NDND
NDND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND .
ND
ND
ND
18,000
ND
MW-lOB
12/14/84
6108,5004,100
NDND
NDNDND
ND
ND
ND
1,300
ND4,700
NDND70ND
MU-10B
01/08/85
3605,5002,800
NDND
ND12NDND
ND
12
24064
1,3003
ND
ND
ND
MW-10D
06/25/85
ND(a)4
401
ND
NDNDND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NONITOtINC WELLS AND SAMPLING DATES
00WoU110o<001
COMPOUND
4, A '-DOT
4, 4 '-DDE
4, 4' -ODD
Alpha-BHC
Bcta-BHC
Delta-BHC
Dalapon
Dicaaba
MCPP
MTPAriwB n
Dichloroprop
2,4-D
2,4, 5-T
2,4-DB
/ \k>rt _ U,«.*. «lAfrA*>fr*«4
MW-2B
06/17/85
ND
0.15
0.32
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
613.0
123.0
ND
MU-7B
06/17/85
ND
ND
12.0
ND
ND
3.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.0
1.76
ND
•
MW-10A
12/14/84
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
HW-10A
01/08/85
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.0
ND
ND
ND
2.0
2.0
ND
ND
MW-10B
12/14/84
17.0
ND
1.5
7.5
1.9
4.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MU-10B
01/08/85
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.0
1.0
1,000
1,000
ND
5.2
2.0
4.0
MU-10D
06/25/85
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.0
1.0
N1T
ND
ND
2.0 •
ND
ND
nuotrrr IOUJDTARANALYTICAL UtSULTS
MONITOR I MC MtLLS AMD SANPUMC
rAiAiomi
Ant le»««
ArMaic
BerylliM
C«etoiM
Ch !*•!«•
Copper
LeeJ
Mrcitry
Hlckcl
lelentiM
Silver
•DulllM
Zinc
Tgtal Cy«nU«
Total rticnoli
MI-28
04/17/8)
0.001
0.011
<0.002
<0.001
0.12
0.020
0.04
<0.001
0.0*
0.00*<0.002
<«.02
0.045
•AU)
M
NW-2B
M/25/8)
0.00)
• .Oil
0.003<0.001• .04
0.013<0.01<0.001
0.03<O.M4
0.02*<0.02
• .042
<0.01
11.4
NV-2C
04/J5/85
0.0*30.024•.00)<0.001
0.0)0.025
<0.01<».001
<0.01
<0.000
•.021
<O.OI
•.04)
<0.01
2.)
Ml* JBffw ^OB>
•4/25/15
-<0.001• .•22• .002
<0.001
•.0)0.050
<0.01
<0.001
0.0)0.004
0.0)9
0.02
0.079
<0.01
0.*
HU-4C
•*/ 25/85
<0.001
0.0470.00)<0.001
0.1*
0.1*80.04
<0.001
0.12
<0.01<0.002
<0.02
0.378
• .01
0.0*
MW-7B
04/17/85
• .001
• .0*3
• .003
• .004
•.19
• .294
•.08
<0.001
•.1)
• .00)
<0.002
<0.02
• .*)2
<0.0l
• .02
NI-7B
04/25/85
<0.001
0.041
<0.002
<0.001
0.03
0.020
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
<0.004
0.002
<0.02
•.048
0.01
0.02
DATO
NV-10A
12/14/84
<0.002
0.010
<0.002
<0.001
0.04
0.052
0.7*
0.004
0.02
<0.03
0.003
<0.02
' 1.7
0.02
0.12
W-10A
01/08/8)
0.005
0.015
0.003
O.001
0.08
0.138
1.2
0.004
0.05
0.007
O.002
0.02
1.5
0.01
0.17
HU-10D
0*/2)/8)
0.007
0.004
<0.002
0.001
0.10
0.112
0.07
0.001
0.05
0.008
0.00)
0.02
0.15*
0.01
0.01
NU-11B
12/14/84
0.001
0.011
O.002
0.003
0.03
0.058
0.02
0.001
0.03 .
0.00*
0.002
0.02
0.490
O.01
0.0)
HU-11B
01/08/85
0.002
0.044
0.00*
0.014
0.2)
0.2)1
0.11
O.001
0.1*
0.00*
O.002
O.02
2.7
0.01
0.10 00WOOlro0«&(Oo>
(•)M* - Hot
SUMMARY Or DETECTED INORGANIC PARAMETERSNEAR-SURFACE SOILS
PROM SITF. AND NEWARK BACKGROUND SAMPLKS
«* or
NEUARK HACKCROUND - 0-4 IHCIItS
CO(*)001roo
Ant i*onj
Artcnic
Beryl 1 iuM.
C«4*im
QirofMuiB
Cupper
L*<4
Mercury
Nickel
Sclcniu*
Silver
Zinc
Total Cyanide
Tul«l Ptienul f
SITt - 0-»
CONCENTRATION RANGE
4.4-6.09
21-0.11 '
0.85-0.22
1.9-0.09
50-1,1240-2.4
887-1.8
19-0.1
82-1.1
0.48
1.2-0.24
29,000-20
1.97-0.15
47.8-0.28
1 m.lir.:>
NUMBERPOSITIVERESULTS
14
71
II
17
71
71
71
18 :
70
1
7
71
19
70
NUMBERSAMPI.CS
ANALYZED
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
71
21
21
21
21
CONCENTRATION RANGE
1.0-0.10
41-0.40
0.84-0.25
24-0.08
50-1.9
250-2.0
444-7.1
17-0.4
40-2.1
2.2-0.01
11-0.25
1,100-8.0
2.8-0.10
1.178-0.10
NUMBERPOSITIVEMKSULTS
17
n9
14
21
20
20
14
70
1
4
71
19
71
NUMBERSAMPLKS CONCENTRATION RANGE
ANALYZED
71 9.1-7.7
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
21
71
71
71
21
10-4. k
0.5-0.47
/. 8-7.0
98-51
111-177
1.700-595
7.0-0.4
74-15
1.4-0.45
878-478
7.9-0.78
117
NUMBER Hunnr*POSITIVK SAMH.r:RESULTS ANAI.V/t
) 1
1 1
7 1
1 J
1 1
1 I
1 1
1 1
1 1
0 1
J 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
to
8610
2909
8•s
i»*o
-»»»
»'»'
• «
• o
— «
»
•*
*•
— •
•«
*•
»•
*•
» i
• i
> •
- •
w»
a ^
•-
ft
i i
ii
o
M i
o
a
e-
S ?
8 S
39
83
.
,. * s 3
?
.; i
"0*0
*0
r 8
* "o
! ! !
' i !
? ?
* * s
I i v
~ ** 8~« -«
hi
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 O
—
we
• *s
tN
J 8
OO
O'
sl
OO
'J
—
S 3
(•
o t e
"ill
*s?
l i
5«s
"
Hi 3*5
gM
»
o
SITE - 12
ONCENTRATION RAMC ™
7
S3«
«
sql i
q - n
u.
"* S Mi
N C
nS
5-
n i n n
x
i >
± *
i «
* s
£ n
S | c
111
*ni
*K s>
«_
'"'
111 15 =
M 53
•«i
51
VI
O—
—
C
J
u
' n
• 5
--<•
o 5
o2.
* "
SRBICIDES. PESTICIiUHFACE SOILSUAKK •ACKCROUNI) S
• » Wt/l»» or p|'b)
>
e3
ff
lr- n
> n
SUMMARY OF DCTtCTKD VOLATILE ORCANICSNEAR-SURFACE SOILS
PROM SITR AND NEUAHK BACKCHOUND SAMPLES
(Cipreitcd «s or ppb)
BcnccncChlorobcnirnc
Chlorelor*Elhylbcntcrw
Nvlhylcnc chloride
T«lr«thloro«lh*nc
Toluene
Trichloro«lhenc
Action*
2-Bul«non«
Oirbon 4it«lli4«
2-H«i«nonc
MT
84
1,
i,
SITE - 0-*
RATION RANGE
II
,000-19
IB
-
JOO-I*
MO
-
-
000-58
1,400-110
-
-_
INCHES
NUMBERPOSITIVERESULT)
1
2
1
0
21
1
0
0
112
0
0
0
NUMBERSAMPLES
ANALYZED
21
11
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
Sin. - 12-74 INCHES NEWARK BACKGROUND - 0-6 INCHES
CONCENTRATION RANGE
21, ooo-n170. 000-22
18,000-11
M.OUU
110,000-21H, 000- 1, 100
2, 000 ,000- I
9
2,000 t>89,700-M
I
16,000
110,000
HUNBKRPOSITIVERESULTS
)*
2I
21
2
*
1
ufc
1
I
I
NUMBERSAMPLES
ANALYZED
21
212121
2121
21
2121
2121
CONCENTRATION RANGE
H-12
NUMBER NUMMKNroSITIVK SAMI'I KSRESULTS ANAI.Y/KII
0
0
0
0
)0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1»11111t11)1)
00wowtoo<o
SUMMARY OF DETECTED BASE/NEUTRAL/AC III ORGANIC COMPOUNDSNEAR-SURFACE SOILS
FROM SITE AND NEWARK BACKGROUND SAMPLES(E»preucd •» MR/>>g ut ppb)
00WoOlroorooo
7,4,t-Trichlorophcnol
7,4-Dichlorophcnel
7,4-Diwlhyl phenol
Bcnioic At id
7,4,J-Trichlorophcnol
AccniphthcM
I,7,4-Trichlorobcnccnc
Hci«chlorobencrn«
I,7-Uichlorob«nicnc
I, )-Diclilorobtntene
I ,4-Uichlorob«n«tn«
Kluor«nt hrn«
N«phthalrnr
BifU-tthjrlheiyl)phlhal«lc
SITE - 0-*
NCENTRATIOM RANCC
1,500, 00.0- 1,100
1,400,000-980
-
1,800
1), 000, 000-870
2)0
17, 000-1, JOO
110,000- HO
570-710
-
1,400-* 70
t, 100-110
700
1,100-110
INCHES
NUMBERfOSITIVERKSULTS
)
1
0
1
i
1
J
11
I
0
1»11
NUMBERSANPLKS
ANALYZED
71
21
71
21
21
21
21
21
71
21
21
21
21
21
SITK - 17-7* INCHES NEWARK RACKCKOUNU - 0-6 INCHES
CONCENTRATION RANCE
1,700.000-8,700
2,100,000-870
1,700,000
7, JOO,000-7,^00
19.000
770,000-1,200
9,000
610
1,100
t4,ooo-t;o8.700
110,000-1,100
NUMBERPOSITIVERESULTS
NUMBERSAMPLES
ANALYZED
71
71
71
21
71
7121
21
21
21
21
71
71
7 1
CONCENTRATION RANGE
470,000-110,000
J,)00-7,tOO
480
I .700-670
NUMBER NlinllKKPOSITIVE SAMM.tsKtSULTS ANAI.Y7KII
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
)
I
1
Di-N-bulylphlh«l«lc
B«nco(•)•«!hriccnc
5cnco(>)p]rren«
Bent o(b) duo rani he n«
ChrjrfciM
Acrniphttiylene
Anthracene
B*n«o(t.h, i )p«rjrl«nc
Fluorenc
Phenanlhrtneln<*no(l ,J,),-t«l)-pyr*iv»
Pyrene
Dibensof «r«n
2-He thy I naphthalene
80 LISTER -
:CNTRAT10N RANGE
47,000-9104,800-1,0007,100-2,10012.000-2,600
690-2103.000-310
11,000-3,300320
4,100-2102,100-2,7002,200-230
_
itn
0-4 INCHESNUMBER
POSITIVERESULTS
0
333224
3112601
1NUMBERSAMPLES
ANALYZED
2121212121212121212121
. 212121
BO LISTER - 11-?* IMOIESNEWARK BACKGROUND - 0-6 INCHES
CONCENTRATION RANCK
370,000-7.000
47,000-110
44,000-160
71,000-940
170,000-1,400
860-740
1,200-630
32,000300-710
61,000-440
71,000-480
78,000-780
410
21,000
NUHBCMPOSITIVERKSULTS
7
1
11
6
23
7
6
7
7
NllHRERSAMPLES
ANALYZED
71
71
21
71
71
71
71
71
2121
21
21
71
21
CONCENTRATION RANGE
700
1,900-1.100
1,100-1.700
2,700-7,700
3,700-3,700610-710
600-180
2,300-1,100
2,800-1,300
1,700-1,100
1,700-1.400
NUMBERPOSITIVE SAMPLESRESULTS ANALYZKII
| )
1 3
1
0
J
]
0
0
00woO!rooroo
SEWERS AND SUMPS2,3,7,8-TCDD RESULTS SUMMARY
ANALYSIS
LOCATIONt
Severs
Sumps
ManufacturingBuilding
Process Building
TOTAL
NUMBER OFSAMPLES
3
12
NUMBER OFPOSITIVERESULTS
3
12
RANGE OFCONCENTRATION
( p p b )
195-4,0^0
105-2,950
350-9,160
19.5-9,160
830520202
SUMMARY or 2,3,7,8-TCDO RF.SULTSBUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
LOCATION
Off ice aiWLaboratory
Uarehoui*
ManufacturingBuildini
wires
Proccn
Other Stnictyra*
TOTAL
U>0n« «a«pl«
NUMBER OrSAMPLES
8
5
14
51
NUMBER OF RANCE OTPOSITIVE CONCENTRATIONANALYSES ("«/•*)
22
I
4
14
4B
10-14,000
13-19,000
233-7,000
4.4-41,400
4.4-41,600
NUMBER orSAMPLES
16
16
23
10
4
71
CHIPS
NUMBER orPOSITIVEANALYSES
10
13
23
10
4
62
RANCE orCONCENTRATION
(ppb)
0.57-69.3
1.0-192
0.93-1,280
2.7-1,580
1.2-50.0
0.57-1.580
NUMBER OrSAMPLES
BULK
NUMRER OFPOSITIVEANALYSES
RANCE OrCONCENTRATION
(ppb)
3.0-128
0.17
0.17-128
00woOlrooro