HISTORY OF PROPERTY, OWNERSHIP, AND USE
Prior to 1962, the Marjol property was used for surface and subsurface coal mining. The Marjol Battery and Equipment Company owned and operated the recycling facility from 1962 to 1980. The Marjol operations consisted of lead reclamation from used automotive batteries. Lead reclamation was accomplished by cutting the batteries open to remove the lead plates, discarding the acid in the battery and crushing the casing. At times, lead posts and connectors were removed from the top of the battery, melted and formed into ingots. The crushed casings were placed in a former drainageway and strip pits left from the past mining. Later in the operations, when the composition of the casings changed, the casings were recycled.

As a result of these lead reclamation operations, a large volume of battery casing material and soil (both on-site and off-site) became contaminated with lead. The total estimated volume of soils and battery casings exceeding the Site clean-up level of 500 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) lead is approximately 372,000 cubic yards.

Gould purchased the Marjol Battery and Equipment Company in May of 1980. Shortly thereafter, Gould began to phase out plant operations and ceased operations completely in April 1982. During the period from 1988 through 1992, the off-site impacts on nearby residential properties and drainage ways were addressed by excavation of soils with lead concentrations above 500 mg/kg. The majority of the excavated soils have been contained on the site since that time. In 1989 and 1990, the ground surface of the site was significantly modified by Gould during stabilization efforts designed to prevent migration of contaminants. Windblown dust is controlled by the pavement and grass that cover large areas of the Facility. Surface water runoff is discharged in a controlled manner through a stormwater management basin. Direct contact with soil containing lead has greatly been reduced by fencing the Facility and an area northeast of the Facility, and by providing Site security.  Click here for a map of the Marjol Site.

Go to Top of Page

REGULATORY HISTORY AND CURRENT SITE STATUS
The Site has been the subject of several consent orders under both the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and its Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) programs. The final remedy for the Site is being addressed under USEPA’s RCRA Program. 

Go to Top of Page

CERCLA 1988 CONSENT ORDER
On April 6, 1988, Gould and the USEPA entered into a Consent Agreement and Order to perform emergency removal actions under Section 106(a) of CERCLA. The CERCLA 1988 Consent Order removal action was to secure and stabilize the Facility, and to identify and address the contamination in the nearby residential areas. The CERCLA 1988 Consent Order also required that the extent of contamination on-site and off-site be determined. The activities required by the CERCLA 1988 Consent Order have been completed; these activities included soil removal and restoration of 133 properties, interior house cleaning of 107 residential units, an extent of contamination study and site stabilization to control off-site migration of lead.

Go to Top of Page

RCRA 1990 CONSENT ORDER
On June 11, 1990, an Administrative Order on Consent (RCRA 1990 Consent Order) between the USEPA, PADEP and Gould was signed regarding the Site. The 1990 RCRA Consent Order required Gould to conduct a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) and a Corrective Measures Study (CMS). The activities required by the RCRA 1990 Consent Order have been completed.
On October 15, 1999, the USEPA and PADEP issued a Statement of Basis (USEPA 1999) for the Site; this was USEPA and PADEP’s proposed remedy for the Site that called for, among other measures, on-site containment of the battery casing material that had been placed in the former drainageway. Extensive comments were submitted on the proposed remedy in the Statement of Basis during the public comment period from November 1, 1999 through January 18, 2000. During the public comment period, questions were raised by a consultant to the Borough of Throop regarding the condition of two coal seams that underlie the battery casing material that was proposed to be left on-site. These two seams are called the Top Split of the Top Four-Foot and the Top Four-Foot seams, and the questions focused on whether or not they had been mined and whether they pose a mine fire hazard to the battery casing material.

Go to Top of Page

USEPA/PADEP’s FINAL DECISION ON A REMEDY FOR THE SITE
On December 4, 2000, the USEPA in conjunction with PADEP issued its Final Decision on a remedy for the Site. That remedy consists of the following corrective measures (click here to see a schematic of the site after the cleanup):

• Excavation of soil and battery casings from on-site areas north of the southern most limit of the General Five-Foot coal seam, which exceed the soil lead cleanup standard of 500 mg/kg. This material will be consolidated on-site or removed for off-site disposal as described below;
• Excavation of soil with lead concentrations exceeding 500 mg/kg in the North Woods, and wooded areas adjacent to the Woodlawn Street playground and consolidation on-site or off-site disposal as described below;
• Solidification of the upper most layer of contaminated material beneath the RCRA cap;
• Construction of a cap on top of the contaminated material remaining on-site that complies with applicable federal and state standards;
• Off-site disposal of all contaminated soil and waste material exceeding 500 mg/kg lead which cannot be consolidated beneath the cap as determined by the Final Design;
• Use of dust control measures to prevent the off-site migration of contaminated soil during remedial activities;
• Modification of the Stormwater Management Basin to ensure that it is effective in preventing releases of contaminants to the Lackawanna River during the implementation of the Final Remedy;
• Imposition of institutional controls such as use restrictions, title notices, and proprietary controls, to ensure that the cap integrity is maintained;
• Implementation of Site-wide operation and maintenance activities during and following implementation of the remedy for the Site, including operation and maintenance of the Storm Water Management Basin to prevent releases of lead and other contaminants to the Lackawanna River during remedial activities; and,
• Confirmatory sampling for the following media:
• soil sampling for lead, PAHs, and PCBs to confirm that soil cleanup standards are achieved on-site;
• monitoring of sediments in the Lackawanna River;
• off-site sampling to ensure that remedial activities have not caused off-site contamination and corrective action if necessary; and,
• groundwater monitoring to continue for an unspecified period to ensure that contaminants are not released following implementation of the remedy.

Go to Top of Page

RCRA 2006 CONSENT ORDER
On July 13, 2006, a new Administrative Order on Consent (RCRA 2006 Consent Order) signed by the USEPA, PADEP and Gould became effective regarding the implementation of Corrective Measures at the Site.  The RCRA 2006 Consent Order lays out the requirements for implementing the corrective measures in USEPA/PADEP’s Final Remedy.

                                                                                                                                Go to Top of Page

CORRECTIVE MEASURES WORK PLAN SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL
The signing of the new Consent Order was the first step in the Corrective Measures Implementation (CMI) Process. The next step was submitting the draft CMI Work Plan to USEPA and PADEP which occurred on July 21, 2006. The Work Plan provides a history of the site, and spells out how the design of the remedy will proceed. The CMI Work Plan (with revisions) was approved by USEPA and PADEP on May 3, 2007, with the exception of Section 7.5, Institutional Controls. Section 7.5, Institutional Controls, was issued and approved as final by USEPA on May 29, 2007.
                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                               Go to Top of Page

             
PRE-DESIGN INVESTIGATION
The CMI Work Plan included a Work Plan for a Pre-Design Investigation. The Pre-Design Investigation (PDI) was intended to supplement previous studies conducted at the Site to aid in designing the remedy for the Site. The PDI was divided into three separate investigations with each having specific objectives as follows:

1) Supplemental Mine Fire Investigation - The Supplemental Mine Fire Investigation took place between September 11, 2006 and October 13, 2006 under the supervision of geologists from AGC, USEPA, and Gannet Fleming (Skelly & Loy) for PADEP. The investigation yielded information that will be useful in the design of the final remedy; two additional borings were added to further investigate the limit of the Five Foot coal seam. Gould submitted its conclusions on the investigation to the USEPA and PADEP on October 30, 2006. (Click here to review the Supplemental Mine Fire Investigation Summary Report).

On December 18, 2006, USEPA, PADEP, and Gannett Fleming provided comments on the Supplemental Mine Fire Investigation Report to Gould. USEPA also provided a Fact Sheet Update regarding the site on December 18, 2006. (To view USEPA's Fact Sheet Update, click here). In the fact sheet, USEPA states that the EPA and PADEP technical review teams have evaluated the new and previously existing data related to the coal seams and that all review parties, including the Gannett Fleming oversight team, agree with the following conclusions:

• The Top Four Foot Coal Seam and the Top Split Top Four Foot Coal Seam do not pose a mine fire hazard to the waste containment area proposed for the site;
• A waste containment area may be designed with adequate isolation from the Five Foot coal seam.

2) Depth to Bedrock Investigation - The Depth to Bedrock Investigation was completed during the week of November 27, 2006. The study determined the depth to bedrock in the area of the proposed relocated Stormwater Basin, northwest of the existing Stormwater Basin.

3) Supplemental Soil Investigation - The Soil Sampling Investigation was conducted from April 19, 2007 to May 25, 2007and was completed on August 7 and 8, 2007. The objective of this investigation was to further delineate the vertical and horizontal extent of impacted surface soils and to define wooded areas requiring clearing and excavation. The areas sampled during the PDI include:

• The North Woods;
• The North Ravine;
• Southwest of the North Woods;
• The former Throop Borough Woodlawn Street property;
• Grove Street and the entrance road; and,
• The trailer area.

The data from the soil sampling investigation was used to determine the horizontal and vertical limits of excavation presented in the Preliminary Design. Click here to view the horizontal limits of excavation as determined by the sampling.
                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                     Go to Top of Page

             
 

30% DESIGN SUBMISSION                                                                                                      Gould submitted the 30% Design to USEPA and PADEP on June 29, 2007. The 30% Design Submission presented Gould’s preliminary proposal on how the Final Remedy would take place, what would be done, and what the Site would look like after the remedy is implemented.
The 30% Design Submission included Gould’s preliminary proposal for several items such as:

• What the size of the capped area will be and where it will be located on the Site;
• Where the Stormwater Management Basin will be relocated to;
• The Cap Strain analysis that was required by the Ombudsman’s Report;
• The results of the Pre-Design Investigations;
• Proposed design for achieving isolation between the Five Foot Coal Seam and materials in the Containment Area;
• Preliminary Construction Drawings and sketches; and
• A Preliminary Construction Schedule.