npl support document for rockwell international wheel & trimrockwell international wheel & trim npl...

United States Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 September 2018

Office of Land and Emergency Management

Support Document for the Revised National Priorities List Final Rule – Rockwell International Wheel & Trim

Support Document for theRevised National Priorities List

Final Rule Rockwell International Wheel & Trim

September 2018

Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions BranchOffice of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation

Office of Land and Emergency ManagementU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20460

1. List of Commenters and Correspondence .....................................................................................................1

Rockwell International Wheel & Trim NPL Listing Support Document September 2018

Table of Contents

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................ iii

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ iv

Background of the NPL ....................................................................................................................................... iv

Development of the NPL ..................................................................................................................................... iv

Hazard Ranking System.........................................................................................................................................v

Other Mechanisms for Listing ............................................................................................................................. vi

Organization of this Document ............................................................................................................................ vi

Glossary .............................................................................................................................................................. vii

2. Site Description ..............................................................................................................................................27

3. Summary of Comments.................................................................................................................................29

3.1 Support for Listing and Other Non-opposition Comments ......................................................................32 3.1.1 General Support...............................................................................................................................................32 3.1.2 Support with Requests for Further Actions .....................................................................................................33

3.2 FOIA Request ...........................................................................................................................................34

3.3 Extension of Comment Period..................................................................................................................34

3.4 Purpose of Listing.....................................................................................................................................35

3.5 Alternatives to Listing ..............................................................................................................................37

3.6 Delay Cleanup ..........................................................................................................................................39

3.7 Definition of Site/Site Boundaries............................................................................................................40

3.8 Site Aggregation.......................................................................................................................................42

3.9 Evaluation of Other Pathways ..................................................................................................................44

3.10 Liability ....................................................................................................................................................47

3.11 Stigma and Economic Impact of Site Listing...........................................................................................48

3.12 Releases Below Regulatory/Removal Limits ...........................................................................................50

3.13 Actual Risk ...............................................................................................................................................52

i


3.14 Consideration of Removal Action/Current Conditions ............................................................................52 3.14.1 Consideration of the SSDS and Current Conditions........................................................................................53 3.14.2 CERCLA Removal v. Remedial Actions ........................................................................................................57 3.14.3 Inconsistent Application of the HRS and other EPA Regulations and Policies...............................................59 3.14.4 Inaccuracies in the HRS Scoring and Evaluation ............................................................................................64

3.15 Adequacy of the Administrative Record ..................................................................................................67

3.16 Non-Scoring Comments ...........................................................................................................................70 3.16.1 Background Level of Zero...............................................................................................................................72 3.16.2 Link Between Outdoor Air Contamination and Facility..................................................................................73 3.16.3 Contamination at Moose Lodge Road Disposal Area and Kirk Property........................................................74 3.16.4 Accuracy of ESI Report...................................................................................................................................79 3.16.5 Purpose of SSDS Pilot Test .............................................................................................................................79 3.16.6 Metals Contamination of Groundwater ...........................................................................................................80 3.16.7 Groundwater/Aquifer Characterization ...........................................................................................................82 3.16.8 Soil Contamination Migrating Below Building...............................................................................................82 3.16.9 Equalization Lagoon Contaminants.................................................................................................................84 3.16.10 Soil Contamination Characterization...............................................................................................................87 3.16.11 Other Possible Source Areas Investigated .......................................................................................................89 3.16.12 Threats to Eastern Heights Neighborhood.......................................................................................................92 3.16.13 Map of Boring Locations.................................................................................................................................97 3.16.14 Process Sewer Lines ........................................................................................................................................98

3.17 Likelihood of Exposure ............................................................................................................................99 3.17.1 Observed Exposure: Consideration of VI Mitigation System .........................................................................99 3.17.2 Observed Exposure: Attribution ....................................................................................................................102 3.17.2.1 Effect of Clay Layer.................................................................................................................................. 102 3.17.2.2 Attribution of Release to the Facility ........................................................................................................ 108

3.17.3 Potential for Exposure ...................................................................................................................................109 3.17.4 Structure Containment...................................................................................................................................110

3.18 Waste Characteristics - Hazardous Waste Quantity ...............................................................................114

3.19 Targets - Level I Concentrations Benchmarks .......................................................................................118 3.19.1 SCDM Values and Benchmarks Below Removal Levels..............................................................................118 3.19.2 Non-Cancer and Cancer Benchmarks............................................................................................................126 3.19.3 Level I Concentrations and Current Levels ...................................................................................................131

3.20 Site Score................................................................................................................................................133

4. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................135

Appendix A Supplemental Indoor Air Monitoring Data Appendix B June 2018 Indoor Air Monitoring Results Table

ii


Executive Summary Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the EPA prepare a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. An original National Priorities List (NPL) was promulgated on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). CERCLA requires that EPA update the list at least annually.

This document provides responses to public comments received on the Rockwell International Wheel & Trim site, proposed on January 18, 2018 (83 FR 2576). This site is being added to the NPL based on an evaluation under EPA’s Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in a final rule published in the Federal Register in September 2018.

iii


Introduction This document explains the rationale for adding the Rockwell International Wheel & Trim site in Grenada, Mississippi to the National Priorities List (NPL) of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and provides responses to public comments received on this site listing proposal. The EPA proposed this site to the NPL on January 18, 2018 (83 FR 2576). This site is being added to the NPL based on an evaluation under the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in a final rule published in the Federal Register in September 2018.

Background of the NPL

In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601 et seq. in response to the dangers of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), Public Law No. 99-499, stat., 1613 et seq. To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA Section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP, further revised by EPA on September 16, 1985 (50 FR 37624) and November 20, 1985 (50 FR 47912), sets forth guidelines and procedures needed to respond under CERCLA to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. On March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666), EPA further revised the NCP in response to SARA.

Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the NCP include:

criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action.

Removal action involves cleanup or other actions that are taken in response to emergency conditions or on a short-term or temporary basis (CERCLA Section 101). Remedial action is generally long-term in nature and involves response actions that are consistent with a permanent remedy for a release (CERCLA Section 101). Criteria for placing sites on the NPL, which makes them eligible for remedial actions financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA, were included in the HRS. EPA promulgated the HRS as Appendix A of the NCP (47 FR 31219, July 16, 1982). On December 14, 1990 (56 FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS in response to SARA, and established the effective date for the HRS revisions as March 15, 1991. On January 9, 2017, EPA promulgated a further revision to the HRS that added a component for evaluating the threats posed by the intrusion of subsurface contamination into regularly occupied structures. These changes are consistent with, and comply with, the statutory requirements of SARA.

Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended, requires that the statutory criteria provided by the HRS be used to prepare a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is Appendix B of the NCP, is the NPL.

An original NPL of 406 sites was promulgated on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). At that time, an HRS score of 28.5 was established as the cutoff for listing because it yielded an initial NPL of at least 400 sites, as suggested by CERCLA. The NPL has been expanded several times since then, most recently on May 17, 2018 (83 FR 22859). The Agency also has published a number of proposed rulemakings to add sites to the NPL. The most recent proposal was on May 17, 2018 (83 FR 22918).

Development of the NPL

The primary purpose of the NPL is stated in the legislative history of CERCLA (Report of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senate Report No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 [1980]).

iv


The priority list serves primarily informational purposes, identifying for the States and the public those facilities and sites or other releases which appear to warrant remedial actions. Inclusion of a facility or site on the list does not in itself reflect a judgment of the activities of its owner or operator, it does not require those persons to undertake any action, nor does it assign liability to any person. Subsequent government actions will be necessary in order to do so, and these actions will be attended by all appropriate procedural safeguards.

The NPL, therefore, is primarily an informational and management tool. The identification of a site for the NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of the human health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. The NPL also serves to notify the public of sites EPA believes warrant further investigation. Finally, listing a site may, to the extent potentially responsible parties are identifiable at the time of listing, serve as notice to such parties that the Agency may initiate CERCLA-financed remedial action.

CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(B) directs EPA to list priority sites among the known releases or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants, and Section 105(a)(8)(A) directs EPA to consider certain enumerated and other appropriate factors in doing so. Thus, as a matter of policy, EPA has the discretion not to use CERCLA to respond to certain types of releases. Where other authorities exist, placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action under CERCLA may not be appropriate. Therefore, EPA has chosen not to place certain types of sites on the NPL even though CERCLA does not exclude such action. If, however, the Agency later determines that sites not listed as a matter of policy are not being properly responded to, the Agency may consider placing them on the NPL.

Hazard Ranking System

The HRS is the principle mechanism EPA uses to place uncontrolled waste sites on the NPL. It is a numerically based screening system that uses information from initial, limited investigations -- the preliminary assessment and site inspection -- to assess the relative potential of sites to pose a threat to human health or the environment. HRS scores, however, do not determine the sequence in which EPA funds remedial response actions, because the information collected to develop HRS scores is not sufficient in itself to determine either the extent of contamination or the appropriate response for a particular site. Moreover, the sites with the highest scores do not necessarily come to the Agency's attention first, so that addressing sites strictly on the basis of ranking would in some cases require stopping work at sites where it was already underway. Thus, EPA relies on further, more detailed studies in the remedial investigation/feasibility study that typically follows listing.

The HRS uses a structured value analysis approach to scoring sites. This approach assigns numerical values to factors that relate to or indicate risk, based on conditions at the site. The factors are grouped into three categories. Each category has a maximum value. The categories are:

• likelihood that a site has released or has the potential to release hazardous substances into the environment;

• characteristics of the waste (e.g., toxicity and waste quantity); and

• targets (e.g., people or sensitive environments) affected by the release.

Under the HRS, four pathways can be scored for one or more components and threats as identified below:

• Ground Water Migration (Sgw) — population

v

2 2 2

𝑆𝑆 = �𝑆𝑆𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 + 𝑆𝑆𝑠𝑠𝑔𝑔 + 𝑆𝑆𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 + 𝑆𝑆𝑎𝑎2

4


• Surface Water Migration (Ssw) The following threats are evaluated for two separate migration components, overland/flood migration and ground water to surface water.

— drinking water — human food chain — sensitive environments

• Soil Exposure and Subsurface Intrusion (Ssessi) — Soil Exposure Component:

o resident population o nearby population

— Subsurface Intrusion Component o population

• Air Migration (Sa) — population

After scores are calculated for one or more pathways according to prescribed guidelines, they are combined using the following root-mean-square equation to determine the overall site score (S), which ranges from 0 to 100:

If all pathway scores are low, the HRS score is low. However, the HRS score can be relatively high even if only one pathway score is high. This is an important requirement for HRS scoring because some extremely dangerous sites pose threats through only one pathway. For example, buried leaking drums of hazardous substances can contaminate drinking water wells, but -- if the drums are buried deep enough and the substances not very volatile -- not surface water or air.

Other Mechanisms for Listing

There are two mechanisms other than the HRS by which sites can be placed on the NPL. The first of these mechanisms, authorized by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2), allows each State and Territory to designate one site as its highest priority regardless of score. The last mechanism, authorized by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows listing a site if it meets the following three requirements:

• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release;

• EPA determines the site poses a significant threat to public health; and

• EPA anticipates it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its emergency removal authority to respond to the site.

Organization of this Document

The following section contains EPA responses to site-specific public comments received on the proposal of the Rockwell International Wheel & Trim site on January 18, 2018 (83 FR 2576). The site discussion begins with a list of commenters, followed by a site description, a summary of comments, and Agency responses to each comment. A concluding statement indicates the effect of the comments on the HRS score for the site.

vi


Glossary

The following acronyms and abbreviations are used throughout the text:

ACC American Chemistry Council Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency AOE Area of observed exposure APA Administrative Procedure Act AST Aboveground storage tanks ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry BCDA Buffing Compound Disposal Area bgs Below ground surface CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42

U.S.C. Sections 9601 et seq., also known as Superfund

CFR Code of Federal Regulations cis-1,2-DCE cis-1, 2-dichloroethene CLP EPA Contract Laboratory Program CRQL Contract-required quantitation limit CSM Conceptual Site Model CTEH Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health, LLC DL Detection limit DNAPL Dense non-aqueous phase liquid EHN Eastern Heights Neighborhood EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESI Expanded site investigation FOIA Freedom of Information Act FR Federal Register FS Feasibility Study GIS Geographic information system HRS Hazard Ranking System, Appendix A of the NCP HRS score Overall site score calculated using the Hazard Ranking System; ranges from 0 to 100 HQ Hazard quotient HWQ Hazardous waste quantity IRIS Integrated Risk Information System LNAPL Light non-aqueous phase liquid MCL Maximum contaminant level MDEQ Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality μg/m3 Microgram per cubic meter

vii


μg/kg Microgram per kilogram μg/L Microgram per liter mg/kg Milligram per kilogram MRL Minimum reporting limit MW Monitoring well NAM National Association of Manufacturers NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300 NPL National Priorities List, Appendix B of the NCP NRC National Research Council OEHHA California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OLEM EPA Office of Land and Emergency Management OPPT EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration OSC EPA On-Scene Coordinator OSWER EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; now called Office of Land and

Emergency Management

PA Preliminary Assessment PCE Tetrachloroethene PID Photoionization detector PRP Potentially responsible party QC Quality control RAGS/HHEM 1989 Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RfD Reference dose RI Remedial investigation RI/FS Remedial investigation/feasibility study RME Reasonable maximum exposure RML Removal management level RSL EPA Regional Screening Level SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SCDM Superfund Chemical Data Matrix SESD USEPA Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division SQL Sample quantitation limit SSDS Sub-slab depressurization system SsI Subsurface intrusion SSS USEPA Region 4’s Scientific Support Section

viii


SWMU Solid waste management unit TCE Trichloroethylene TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act UST Underground storage tank VI Vapor Intrusion VISL USEPA VI Screening Level VOC Volatile organic compounds WTP Wastewater treatment plant

ix


1. List of Commenters and Correspondence

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0004 Correspondence, dated February 27, 2017, from Lynn Chambers of Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Chief, Groundwater Assessment & Remediation Division.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0005 Comment, submitted February 7, 2018, by an anonymous public commenter.









EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0014 Comment, submitted February 8, 2018, by Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0015 Comment, submitted February 8, 2018, by J. Williams.




EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0019 Comment, submitted February 13, 2018, by S. Battle.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0020 Comment, submitted February 21, 2018, by M. Harris.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0021 Comment, submitted March 1, 2018, by J. Kincaid.

1


EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0022 Comment, submitted March 8, 2018, by A. M. Mister.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0023 Comment, submitted March 12, 2018, by S. Nevitte.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0024 Comment, submitted March 12, 2018, by A. Loggins.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0025 Comment, submitted March 12, 2018, by J. James.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0026 Comment, submitted March 12, 2018, by T. Craig.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0027 Comment, submitted March 12, 2018, by A. Sledge.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0028 Comment, submitted March 12, 2018, by D. and M. McClain.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0029 Comment, submitted March 12, 2018, by H. Auther.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0030 Comment, submitted March 13, 2018, by L. Porter.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0031 Comment, submitted March 13, 2018, by B. Benson.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0032 Comment, submitted March 13, 2018, by D. Seldon.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0033 Comment, submitted March 13, 2018, by G. Kimble.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0034 Comment, submitted March 13, 2018, by B. Bridges.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0035 Comment, submitted March 13, 2018, by K. Cooke.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0036 Comment, submitted March 13, 2018, by B. Yates.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0037 Comment, submitted March 13, 2018, by R. Lofton.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0038 Comment, submitted March 13, 2018, by K. Fisher.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0039 Comment, submitted March 13, 2018, by M. Odomes.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0040 Comment, submitted March 13, 2018, by S. Caffee.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0041 Comment, submitted March 13, 2018, by an anonymous public commenter.


EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0043 Memorandum, submitted March 15, 2018, extending the comment period established by EPA-OLEM-201-0608-0001.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0044 Comment, submitted March 15, 2018, by Heidi B. (Goldstein) Friedman, Thompson Hine LLP on behalf of Meritor, Inc. (Meritor).

2


EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0044.1 Comment attachment, submitted March 15, 2018, by Heidi B. (Goldstein) Friedman, Thompson Hine LLP on behalf of Meritor, Inc. (Meritor).

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0045 Correspondence, extension of comment period, submitted March 15, 2018, by Doug Ammon, Chief, Site Assessment and Remedy Decision Branch.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0046 Comment, submitted March 16, 2018, by V. Adams.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0046.1 Comment attachment, submitted March 16, 2018, by V. Adams.


EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0047.1 Comment attachment, submitted March 16, 2018, by an anonymous public commenter.


EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0049 Comment, submitted March 26, 2018, by J. Parker.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0050 Comment, submitted March 26, 2018, by C. Mack.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0050.1 Comment attachment, submitted March 26, 2018, by C. Mack.


EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0052 Comment, submitted March 28, 2018, by D. Simonton.




EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0056 Comment, submitted March 28, 2018, by A. Nicholson.


EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0058 Comment, submitted March 28, 2018, by D. Jenkins.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0059 Comment, submitted March 28, 2018, by Ross Eisenberg, Vice President, Energy and Resources Policy, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).

3


EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0059.1 Comment attachment, submitted March 28, 2018, by Ross Eisenberg, Vice President, Energy and Resources Policy, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0060 Comment, submitted March 28, by Paul J. Bishop, President, Ice Industries, Inc.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0060.1 Comment attachment, submitted March 28, by Paul J. Bishop, President, Ice Industries, Inc.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0061 Comment, submitted April 10, 2018, by Steve P. Risotto, Senior Director, American Chemistry Council (ACC).

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0061.1 Comment attachment, submitted April 10, 2018, by Steve P. Risotto, Senior Director, American Chemistry Council (ACC).

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0062 Comment, submitted April 12, 2018, by Heidi B. Friedman et al., Thompson Hine LLP and Butler Snow LLP on behalf of Meritor, Inc.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0062.1 Comment attachment, submitted April 12, 2018, by Heidi B. Friedman et al., Thompson Hine LLP and Butler Snow LLP on behalf of Meritor, Inc.








4















5















6















7















8















9















10
















11











EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0117 Comment, submitted April 12, 2018, by John Ellis, Senior Project Manager Arcadis U.S., Inc., on behalf of Grenada Manufacturing, LLC.

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0608-0117.1 Comment attachment, submitted April 12, 2018, by John Ellis, Senior Project Manager Arcadis U.S., Inc., on behalf of Grenada Manufacturing, LLC.



12















13















14















15















16















17















18















19















20















21















22















23















24















25















26




2. Site Description

The Rockwell International Wheel & Trim site (the Site) is the location of a release of hazardous substances to the environment from operations at the Rockwell International Wheel & Trim (Rockwell) facility and includes a release to indoor air within the facility’s main plant building, as well as possibly to other environmental media. For HRS scoring purposes, the Rockwell site includes an area of observed exposure (AOE) in the main plant building affecting 217 people. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including trichloroethene (TCE), cis-1,2-dichloroethene (DCE, a breakdown product of TCE), and toluene were detected at concentrations significantly greater than background levels in indoor air samples collected in October 2016 and January 2017 from the main plant building, indicating that a release of hazardous substances has occurred. TCE levels exceeded the HRS Level I cancer screening concentration benchmark. Evidence indicates that the contaminants migrated into indoor air from the subsurface (subsurface intrusion). In addition to the indoor air detections, contamination has been detected in groundwater at the facility, in soil and sub-slab air samples below the building, and at the point of entry in cracks in the structure floor. The HRS Site score is based on evaluation of the subsurface intrusion component of the soil exposure and subsurface intrusion pathway.

The Rockwell facility encompasses about 76 acres of land, including the main facility (69.5 acres; spans two parcels of 45.5 acres and 24 acres) and the Moose Lodge Road disposal area (on a 6.7 acres parcel), and is located off of Highway 332 East in Grenada, Grenada County, Mississippi (see Figure 1 of the HRS documentation record at proposal). In the vicinity of the Rockwell facility are to the north, the Eastern Heights neighborhood, other residential properties, and vacant land; to the east and south, vacant land; and to the west, Riverdale Creek and agricultural land beyond. From 1966 to 2008, Rockwell and its successors operated a wheel cover manufacturing and chrome plating facility. During wheel cover manufacturing operations, the facility included a main plant building, a warehouse, a drum storage area, two lagoons (equalization and sludge), a wastewater treatment plant (WTP), a waste oil tank, a chromium destruct pit, a flash mix tank, a clarifier tank, sumps, chromic acid plating baths, TCE and toluene storage areas, and an on-site disposal area. Rockwell Automotive Division operated a wheel cover manufacturing facility on the property from 1966 to 1985. In 1985, the plant and property were sold to Textron Automotive Company (Textron), formerly Randall Textron, which continued wheel cover manufacturing operations at the plant. In 1997, Rockwell Automotive Division was spun off from Rockwell International Corporation to form Meritor. In 1999, Textron sold the operation and property to Grenada Manufacturing, LLC (Grenada Manufacturing). Grenada Manufacturing, LLC continued to manufacture wheel covers until 2008, when portions of the plant property were leased to Ice Industries, Inc. (Ice). Ice converted the facility to a stamping plant that manufactured stamp-formed parts for various industries. Wastes generated at the Rockwell facility included paint waste, spent toluene, spent solvents, chromic acid sludge, TCE still bottoms, electroplating waste waters containing hexavalent chromium, buffing compounds, paint sludge, WTP clarifier sludge, waste oil, metal shavings, and corrosive alkaline wash waters.

npl support document for rockwell international wheel & trimrockwell international wheel & trim npl...

Documents