Evan Gross

Issues in Environmental & Occupational Health

Roebling Steel Co. Superfund Site

Event & Contaminant Properties

In one short paragraph, please introduce the event and the contaminant responsible. The Roebling Steel Company was a former wire products and steel manufacturer plant,

operated by several different companies and tenants over the years, which was involved with famous projects such as the Golden Gate Bridge and the George Washington Bridge. It was closed in the 1970’s, and declared a federal Superfund site in 1982. It is a 200-acre site, located in Florence Township in Burlington County, NJ along the Delaware River. Although it helped produce beautiful bridges and other uses for society with steel, the land it occupied became contaminated from the production that was done on the land for years. Although this is a complicated site with several contaminants and methods of cleanup and control of hazardous issues, I will focus on the effects of lead and how it contaminated soil, groundwater, and air of Roebling Steel Co. (http://www.epa.gov/Region2/superfund/npl/0200439c.pdf).

Was this substance the cause of a contamination prior to this event? If so, how and where? There was not a specific event of contamination, but a cumulating of years of unsafe practices

on the Roebling Steel Superfund site, which led to liquid wastes, solid wastes, and gases of containing lead being releases into the atmosphere contaminating air, soil, and waterways in and around the Roebling Steel Co. site (“RECORD OF DECISION” 848590013-14). The contaminated mediums were soil (including slag area), sediment, and ground water (848590007).

What is the current residential population in the town where this release occurred? The current population according to the 2010 US Census in the town of Roebling, NJ, the

location of Roebling Steel Co. is 3,715 (“Your Geography Selections”). Were the residents of this area supplied by public water, or did they have private wells?

Residents of the area are supplied by public supplied wells 2 miles west of the site. (“RECORD OF DECISION” 848590011). The city of Burlington, which is approximately 6 miles downstream from Roebling, obtains water from the Delaware River, along with shallow ground water wells. The ground water from the Roebling site flows southwest from the site directly into the Delaware River.

How is this contaminant generally used (industrial, commercial and/or societal uses)? Lead is a heavy soft metal that has been used in water pipes, pottery, ammunition, radiation

shielding, in stained-glass windows, additive in gasoline, lead-acid storage batteries, building material, and more! (“Lead Statistics and Information”).

Was this contaminant released in a gaseous, liquid or solid form? The contaminant lead is a solid. It was mixed into liquids, due to different processes in the mills,

into an effluent that was released into the ground water. The mills used large amounts of water in production, and lead would contaminate ground and surface areas, along with the effluent flowing into the Delaware River. Lead was also released into the atmosphere as a gas. (“RECORD OF DECISION” 848590013-14).

Is this substance typically found combined with other harmful and/or benign chemicals? Lead is an element, but is rarely found in that state. Instead, it is usually found in its oxidative

state, in ores throughout the world (Sanders). These ores can contain copper, zinc, and silver and lead is usually extracted with these metals. It is found in the environment naturally, but

1

areas with higher concentration are due to humans using lead, which causes the environment to become contaminated. Lead also was found mixed with toxic chemicals in gasoline, and would evaporate into the sky then come back to contaminate water when it rains ("Water Treatment Solutions"). In the case of Roebling, lead was in processed water, along with iron, zinc, oil, chloride, phosphate, sulfate, soap, and spent pickle acid. It was also found in soil waste and was released as volatilized gas into environmental, and residues were found on process equipment in the factories (“RECORD OF DECISION” 848590014).

Human & Animal Health

What human routes of exposure are associated with this contaminant? Most human routes of exposure to lead are ingestion and inhalation. Absorption is a possible

but not likely way of being exposed to lead because leaded gasoline use has ceased. However, organic lead workers have a higher chance than the general population at being exposed to lead via inhalation. Ingestion is the most common route of exposure for children due to many toys and paints containing lead, along with the sweet taste lead has ("Lead Toxicity" 16-20).

What acute and/or chronic health effects have been associated with this contaminant? Lead can be absorbed, ingested, or inhaled. According to the CDC, there is no threshold for

developmental effects in children. The CDC also stated that lead could also affect every organ system in the body, with the nervous system being the most sensitive due to lead being a neurotoxic agent and can lead to many different neurological effects ("Lead Toxicity" 30-7). Reproductive functions can also be affected, such as decreased sperm counts in men, and as we watched in class about the woman and her disabled son, exposure to lead while pregnant can lead to disabled children. According to Moeller, generally speaking, when lead is inhaled, it can accumulate in bone, soft tissues, and blood. Since lead is not easily excreted, it can lead to affects of the kidneys, nervous system, liver, and other organs that produce blood in the body, and with increased exposure comes neurological problems, for example seizures, mental retardation, and/or behavioral problems (Moeller 98).

Is this contaminant a known or suspected carcinogen, teratogen, mutagen, neurotoxin, immunotoxin or reproductive risk? Lead is a known as a developmental neurotoxicant that can affect the brain and its development

and function. Research has shown it has effects on the central nervous system (CNS) and exposures as a youth can lead to problems later in life. Lead exposure can cause memory, vision, cognitive, and behavioral problems, along with mental retardation. All these effects are associated with the brain (Sanders). According to Dictionary.com, neurotoxic is “poisonous to nerve tissue, as to the brain or spinal cord,” and neurotoxin is “a neurotoxic substance, as rattlesnake venom or the poison of a black widow spider.” Lead is also a neurotoxic substance, and is found naturally in the environment in soil underground.

Have any epidemiological studies been conducted, linking this contaminant with illness? There are several epidemiological studies that have been conducted that have linked lead with

illness, especially ones linked to problems during pregnancy and reproduction, along with many showing lead to have effects on neurobiological development. These included cohort, case-control study, ecological and cross-sectional studies. Any of these studies can be searched online, using google scholar or other scholarly research-finding sources. There is no specific epidemiological study found regarding lead exposure on the Roebling Steel site. For example, there was an epidemiological study completed with a group of 434 women that showed that early menopause was related to higher exposure of lead. It showed that the highest lead exposed group had menopause 1.21 years earlier than did women in the lowest lead exposed

2

group. This study concluded that levels of exposure to lead could bring on menopause for women at a faster rate (Eum).

Are there human/animal/cell toxicological studies citing the specific risks to this contaminant? There was a study done in rats that showed that exposure to lead is a risk factor for

osteoporosis because lead was shown to decrease bone density in rats along with also decreasing the ability for rats to heal from fractures (Sharifi 225). Part of the reason of this is because lead is stored in bone marrow, and can be transferred to other parts of the body, including the blood, which shows in high levels of lead in a person’s blood (Riedt 90).

What other health risks has this contaminant been shown to pose to humans and animals? Some health risks were noticed in the assessment of Rochester, NY population, which contained

children with an average rate over the safe limits of lead due to many old houses built with lead paint. Impacts from this exposure in Monroe County, in which Rochester is located, included over 1,000 children who were 6x as likely to have learning disabilities, more than 1,000 children 7x as likely than their peers to drop out of high school, and over 1000 children who were lost earning potential by not having IQ’s 10 points higher (Stoss 290).

What kinds of workers might be at risk in handling this contaminant? Workers who worked on lands of the Roebling Steel Co. and people who cleaned up the site

possibly could be at risk because the ability to be exposed to lead was present. In addition, anglers in the Delaware River or people who used it for recreation could have been in contact with lead contamination in the water. The goal of the EPA’s cause was “to protect public health or welfare or the environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the site into the environment” (“RECORD OF DECISION” 848590002).

Environmental Health

Through which environmental medium/media was this contaminant released? The contaminant was released in the water, soil, and sedimentation. It was also releases into

atmosphere as volatilized gas (“RECORD OF DECISION” 848590014). Did the contamination remain in immediate proximity to the source, or did it become more

widespread and diffuse? If so, how? Acidic effluent containing lead and other heavy metals was released from part of the factory

owned by CF & I (Colorado Fuel and Iron) into the Delaware River, causing the water environment to become messed up due to the low pH of the water. Wherever this water traveled, depending on the current of the river, is where it diffused. This was discovered when the NJDOH went to investigate the plant, and discovered 15-million gallons of untreated effluent was being released on a daily basis (“RECORD OF DECISION” 848590015).

Was the particular incident/event in your article(s) responsible for degradation to the environment or personal property? As the EPA investigated, there were responsible parties that contributed to the degradation of

the environment on the setting of the Roebling Steel Co (848590020-21). Were there any far-reaching effects on the ecosystem at large, like biomagnification of the

contaminant through the food chain? Lead usually accumulates in surface ground water and accumulates in plants in animals which

then humans eat, so biomagnification does occur through the food chain (Ong 1549).

Summary

Which federal, state and/or local governmental agencies had a stake in this contamination?

3

The EPA was the lead agency in the cleanup of the site. The NJDEP is a support agency involved with the site. The site was put on the National Priorities list by the EPA (“RECORD OF DECISION” 848590011).

Is there, or was there, an ongoing investigation and clean up involving this event/site? (i.e., was the site declared a federal Superfund site with requisite abatement?). Roebling Steel Co. was put on the National Priorities list in December 1982, and was declared a

federal Superfund site in September 1983. In 1985, a remedial investigation and feasibility study was completed by the EPA and decided to handle the many different contaminations present in different phases (848590017). From prior knowledge, the former sediment area has been cleaned out and is now a part for the community to enjoy.

Were any fines or administrative penalties imposed on the generator, distributor or storage facility involved with this contaminant? In 1985 and 1987, general notice letters were sent to potential responsible parties (PRP)

following the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), which was amended, to inform past and present owners of their involvement in environmental contamination. No PRP responded at that time. Eventually, through searching they found that CF & I, a former site operator, had released or potentially released environmental contaminants such as lead through their unsafe handling practices. CF & I was undergoing bankruptcy. Eventually it was all sorted out, and in August 1995, CF & I paid the EPA $2.2 million dollars (“RECORD OF DECISION” 848590020-21).

What did local officials do to communicate the risk to the public or involve them in a solution? After town officials and residents found out about Roebling as a Superfund site in 1983 on the

news, town officials took measures to keep the community involved in the following years. However, town officials contend they were not briefed prior to release of the information, and communication between state and federal officials was poor. Concern in the town was very high and so was resident involvement. The EPA became involved with informing the public by having several information sessions, attending town meetings, and providing fact sheets on the Roebling Steel EPA website. Public interest in the cleanup of the site remained high through the cleanup process (848590259-60).

In your opinion, could this contamination have been easily prevented? How? In my opinion, I think this contamination could have been prevented if the knowledge we have

now was applied when the Roebling Steel Co. was established. If today’s rules and regulations were in effect when the factory was being built, many of the chemicals used in production would not have been used. One tool that could be applied in the contamination of lead in Roebling is the Hierarchy of Controls, as learned in Dr. Cohen’s lesson on Occupational Health at the Rutgers School of Public Health on July 30, 2015. This system is used to reduce and/or eliminate hazardous exposure in the workplace. The top two steps of the Hierarchy of Controls are Elimination and Substitution, respectively, and these are used to avoid the hazard being present altogether, which in the topic of this paper, would be avoiding the use of lead in operations at the Roebling Steel Factory. Elimination is physically removing the hazard, and substitution is replacing the hazards. By avoiding lead in the workplace, it also prevents the environment from being infected with the hazard, causing damage to plants, animals, and residents in the local area. Another step that could have been used was learned in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and that concept is cradle to grave. If Roebling Steel Co. were more responsible in handling their own wastes, they would have been more thoughtful in their ability to use and recycle their own wastes.

Citations

4

Eum, Ki-Do, Marc G. Weisskopf, Linda H. Nie, Howard Hu, and Susan A. Korrick. "EHP – Cumulative Lead Exposure and Age at Menopause in the Nurses' Health Study Cohort." EHP. 1 Mar. 2014. Web. 6 Aug. 2015. <http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1206399/>.

"Lead Statistics and Information." USGS Minerals Information: Lead. USGS. Web. 4 Aug. 2015. <http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/lead/#pubs>.

“Lead Toxicity.” Case Studies in Environmental Medicine (CSEM). Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 15 Aug. 2013. 1-71. Web. Aug. 2015. <http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/lead/docs/lead.pdf>.

Moeller, D. W. "Indoor and Outdoor Air." Environmental Health. 4th ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 2011. 98. Print.

"Neurotoxic." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 04 Aug. 2015. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/neurotoxic>.

"Neurotoxin." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 04 Aug. 2015. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/neurotoxin>.

Ong, H., Maziah, M., & Tan, S. (2013). Synergistic and Antagonistic Effects of Zinc Bioaccumulation with Lead and Antioxidant Activities in Centella asiatica. SAINS MALAYSIANA, 1548-1555.

"RECORD OF DECISION." Operable Unit 5 and Amendment to Operable Unit 3 Selected Remedy (2003): 848590001-48590320. Print.

Riedt, Claudia S., et al. "Blood Lead Levels And Bone Turnover With Weight Reduction In Women." Journal Of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 19.1 (2009): 90-96. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 Aug. 2015.

"Roebling Steel Co." Epa.gov. EPA, 1 Apr. 2011. Web. 3 Aug. 2015. <http://www.epa.gov/Region2/superfund/npl/0200439c.pdf>.

Sanders, Talia et al. “Neurotoxic Effects and Biomarkers of Lead Exposure: A Review.” Reviews on environmental health 24.1 (2009): 15–45. Print.

"SEDIMENTS AND SHORELINE REMEDIATION." Epa.gov. EPA, 1 June 2013. Web. 3 Aug. 2015. <http://www.epa.gov/region2/superfund/npl/roeblingsteelco/Fig1.pdf>.

Sharifi, Ali M., et al. "Investigating The Effect Of Lead Acetate On Rat Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells Toxicity: Role Of Apoptosis." Toxicology Mechanisms & Methods 21.3 (2011): 225-230. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 Aug. 2015.

Stoss, Frederick W., and Kathleen De la Peñ McCook. "Building Lead-Free Communities." Reference & User Services Quarterly 44.4 (2005): 289-295. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 Aug. 2015.

"Your Geography Selections." American FactFinder. U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. Web. 4 Aug. 2015. <http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk>.

"Water Treatment Solutions." Lead (Pb). Lenntech. Web. 4 Aug. 2015. <http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/elements/pb.htm>.

5