EPA-700/8-88-048
May 1988 EPA-700/8-88-048
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water
Task Force
Evaluation of
Rollins Environmental Services
Bridgeport, NJ.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
LoS protect our eanh
Department of Environmental Protection
$t*t* ot fttto Jersey
-------
May 1988
Update of the Hazardous Waste Groundwater Task Force evaluation of Rollins
Environmental Services (NJ), Inc., Bridgeport, New Jersey
The United States Environmental Protection Agency's Hazardous Waste Ground
Ground Water Task Force (HWGWTF) and the New Jersey Department of Environ-
mental Protection NJDEP conducted an evaluation of the compliance of Rollins
Environmental Services (NJ), Inc. (RES) with the interim status and ground
water monitoring requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) as adopted by New Jersey. RES is one of the 59 commerical and non-
commercial hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities to be
evaluated. The on-site inspection was conducted over an eleven-day period
from February 9 to February 19, 1987.
In the 1970s, various hazardous constituents were released to the soil,
ground, and surface water due to spills and the operation of unlined sur-
face impoundments. These releases resulted in NJDEP's issuance of an
Administrative Consent Order (ACO) to RES in 1981. The ACO required
sitewide ground water monitoring and decontamination procedures. Many of
the surface impoundments were closed under this Order. Only 8 unlined
storage surface impoundments (L-series lagoons) and 2 concrete lined treat-
treatment surface impoundments (basins B-206 and B-207) remain.
The Task Force conducted an in-depth on-site investigation of RES. The
evaluation focused on (1) determining if the facility was in compliance
with applicable regulatory requirements and policy, (2) determining if
hazardous constituents were present in the ground water, (3) providing
information to assist EPA in determining if the facility meets the EPA
requirements for facilities receiving waste from response actions conducted
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA).
The site evaluation conducted in February 1987 revealed violations of RCRA
and New Jersey hazardous waste regulations. In summary, these included an
inadequate ground water monitoring assessment program to meet compliance
with RCRA and New Jersey regulations, inadequacies in RES' interim status
ground water sampling and analysis procedures, deficiencies in on-site
laboratories and violations of waste management practices and records
maintained at RES.
Although RES has been following the 1981 State ACO, based on the Task Force
findings the following actions will be required by RES:
1. RES must upgrade its existing site-wide ground water monitoring
system to accurately assess on-and off-site soil, ground and
surface water contamination. RES must expand its sampling of
the horizontal and vertical extent of ground water contamination.
In particular the north marsh area, the south marsh area, and
the shallow artesian zone throughout the site require more
samp!ing,
-------
2. Revise the current ground water sampling and analysis plan to address
the deficient procedures, methods and quality analysis/ quality
control programs as outlined in the Task Force Report, and
3. Address deficiencies found in current waste management practices
and records maintained at the facility.
On August 21, 1987, EPA and RES entered into a 3008(h) Administrative
Consent Order. This Consent Order requires RES to correct the deficiencies
found in the ground water assessment program and ground water sampling and
analysis plans (items 1 and 2). Pursuant to the Consent Order, RES sub-
mitted a draft workplan in December 1987 to conduct a site-wide RCRA
Facility Investigation (RFI). The workplan when approved by EPA and NJDEP
will require the facility to accurately assess on- and off-site soil,
ground, and surface water contamination. The Consent Order also requires
RES to conduct Corrective Measure studies and to implement Corrective
Measures based on the findings of the RFI. RES violations pertaining to
waste management practices and record keeping (item 3) detailed in the
Task Force Report have been corrected. The State issued the Notice of
Violation (NOV) to RES on May 28, 1987. The facility came into compliance
on June 28, 1987. Based on the latest EPA off-site policy and the entering
into the 3008(h) Consent Order, EPA determined that RES is eligible to
receive waste from response actions taken under CERCLA.
RES submitted closure/post-closure plans for the 8 unlined surface impound-
ments and 2 concrete lined treatment surface impoundments (B-206 and B-207)
on May 15, 1986. RES is required to cease introducing waste into these
units on or before November 8, 1988 and replace the surface impoundments
with above ground tanks. On February 25, 1988 NJDEP issued RES a technical
Notice of Deficiency (NOD) for its closure and post-closure plans. Following
RES' response to the NOD, NJDEP issued RES a draft closure plan modification
and approval for the 10 surface impoundments in the form of a NJPDES/DSW
draft permit. On March 30, 1988, NJDEP public noticed this draft closure
approval.
EPA and NJDEP public noticed a RCRA permit on May 23, 1988. The RCRA
permit contains NJDEP's RCRA operating permit and EPA's permit pursuant to
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). NJDEP's RCRA
operating permit contains operating conditions for the incinerator, tanks
and container storage areas, while EPA's HSWA permit incorporates the
August 21, 1987, 3008(h) Consent Order.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is a pleasure to acknowledge the particular assistance of my co-worker
Jeffrey Gratz, who contributed immensely in evaluating RES' ground water
monitoring program. In addition, I would like to acknowledge the assistance
of the following personnel who provided information and technical guidance:
Al Neshiewat, Tom Solecki, Joe Cosentino, Lou DiGuardia, Fred Haber, Brian
Lewis, Carol Casazza, Thomas O'Keeffe, Tracy Wagner, Jack Allen, and Dave
Zervas. Lastly, I wish to thank the personnel of Rollins Environmental
Services (NJ) on behalf of the Task Force team for assisting us during the
inspection, from February 9 to 19, 1987.
Samuel I. Ezekwo
Project Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Proctection Agency
Region II
For further information regarding this report please contact:
Hazardous Waste Compliance Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
HAZARDOUS WASTE GROUND WATER TASK FORCE
GROUND WATER MONITORING EVALUATION
Rollins Environmental Services (NJ), Inc,
Bridgeport, New Jersey
May 1988
Samuel I. Ezekwo
Project Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
'.;. Frwironmentil Protection Agency
~. ;•-.; .jr. 5, Library (5PL-16)
r-6 2. Dearborn Street, Room 1670
C ..oago, IL 60604
-------
11
CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Introduction 1
B. Summary of Findings and Conclusions 2
1. Ground Water Monitoring Program During Interim Status 5
2. Ground Water Sampling and Analysis Plan 6
3. Audit of Currently Used Laboratories 7
4. Task Force Well Sampling Data Analysis 7
5. Compliance Evaluation Inspection 8
II. TECHNICAL REPORT
A. Regulatory Requirements 9
1. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Responsibilities 10
2. Environmental Protection Agency's Responsibilities 10
B. Investigative Methods and Procedures 11
1. Records/Documents Review 11
2. Comprehensive Ground Water Monitoring Evaluation 11
3. Ground Water Sampling and Analysis 12
4. Evaluation of On-Site and Off-Site Analytical Labs 13
5. Comprehensive Evaluation Inspection 13
C. Facility Description and Operation 14
1. General Information 14
2. Description of Facility Operations 14
3. Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) 15
D. Ground Water Monitoring Program During Interim Status 17
1. RES Compliance History 17
a. Early Plant History - 1970s 17
-------
m
b. Events Surrounding the 1981 Administrative Order 17
c. Part B Submittal and LOIS Certification 24
d. Situation at the Time of Task Force Inspection 27
2. Regional Setting 28
a. Physi ography 28
b. Geologic Setting 28
c. Hydrogeologic Setting 33
3. Site Hydrogeology 40
a. General Overview- Geology 40
b. General Overview- Hydrogeology 42
c. Hydrogeology and RES' Ground Water Monitoring Program 43
4. Ground Water Quality 50
a. General Overview 50
b. Ground Water Quality and the RES Ground Water
Monitoring Program 50
5. Discussion 65
6. Conclusions and Recommendations 74
7. References 77
E. Ground Water Sampling and Analysis Plan 79
F. Audit of Currently Used Laboratories 84
1. RES Laboratory 84
2. Environmental Testing and Certification Laboratory 86
G. Ground Water Sampling Activities at RES 87
H. Task Force Well Sampling Data Analysis 90
1. Inorganic and Indicator Parameters 90
-------
1v
2. Metal Analyses Results 92
3. Organic Analyses Results 94
4. Dioxin/Furans Analyses Results 98
I. Compliance Evaluation Inspection 99
1. Facility Description and Operations 99
2. Hazardous Waste Storage 99
3. Other Storage Tanks 100
4. Incinerator 101
5. Waste Analysis Plan 102
6. Closure Plan 103
III. APPENDICES 104
A. Tables of Schedule of Task Force Sampling Activities,
Physical Characteristic of Ground Water Monitoring Wells,
and Task Force Sampling Data 105
B. Evaluation of Quality Control Attendant to the Analysis
of Samples from the RES Facility, New Jersey 141
C. Inventory of Hazardous Waste On-site During Task
Force Evaluation 157
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1. Location of RES (NJ) in Logan Township, Bridgeport, N.J 4
2. Location of RES (NJ) facility with respect to (a) the Delaware
River and surrounding townships and (b) counties within the State
of New Jersey. From RES (1985) and Hardt (1963) 18
3. RES facility map - 1972 19
4. RES facilitymap - 1980 21
5. New Jersey Coastal Plain and fall line. From Zapezca (1984) 29
6. Drainage basins in the New Jersey Coastal Plain. From Volwinkel
and Foster (1981) 30
7. Generalized hydrogeologic cross-section showing dipping bedrock
(pre-Cretaceous) and unconsolidated sediments in the New Jersey
Coastal plain. From Walker (1983) 31
8. Generalized structure contour (altitude in feet; datum is mean sea
level) on pre-Cretaceous bedrock surface in the New Jersey Coastal
Plain. From Parker et. al. (1964) 32
9. Diagrammatic representations of depositional environments which
existed during the emplacement of Cretaceous and younger sediments
in the New Jersey Costal plain. From Owens and Sohl (1969) 34
10. Geologic and hydrogeologic units of the New Jersey Coastal Plain.
From Zapezca (1984) 35
11. Generalized structure contour (altitude in feet; datum is mean sea
level) on top of the Magothy formation along with isopachs of the
combined Potomac Group, Raritan and Magothy formations. From Parker
et. al. (1964) 37
12. Major ground water withdrawls from the New Jersey Coastal Plain,
1958-1978. From Volwinkel and Foster (1981) 39
13. Site specific geology and geomorphology at RES. From NJDEP (1983)..41
14. Water table contour maps (altitude in feet; datum is mean sea
level) for (a) March, 1972 and (b) November, 1975 44
15. Hydrogeologic cross section. From Geraghty and Miller (1982) 47
16. Water quality in southwestern New Jersey. From Hardt (1963) and
Fusillo et. al. (1984) 51
-------
VI
LIST OF FIGURES (CONT.)
Figure
17. Total dissolved solids (TDS) contours at RES for (a) 1972
and (b) 1975 54
18. Total dissolved solids (TDS) contours at RES for (a) 1977
and (b) 1978 55
19. Total dissolved solids (TDS) contours at RES for (a) 1984
and (b) 1986 61
20. Vertical resistivity profiles for selected locations at RES.
From Geraghty & Miller (1972) 67
21. Geologic cross-sections with total dissolved solids (TDS) data
at RES. From Geraghty & Miller (1972) 68
-------
VII
LIST OF TABLES
Number
1. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Concentrations at RES, 1972-1980 57
2. Sampling Wells and Parameters at RES as Part of (a) the 1981 AGO
and (b) the Unsigned 1983 AGO 58
3. Inorganic and Indicator Parameter Analyses 91
4. Appendix IX Metals (Total and Dissolved) 92
5. Volatile and Semi-volatile Constituents 95
6. Dioxin/Furan Results 98
A-l. Outline of Ground Water Monitoring Activities Conducted by
the Task Force 106
A-2. Summary of Analytical Parameters Sampled by the Task Force
at Rollins Environmental Services 107
A-3. Well Contruction Details for Wells at Rollins Environmental
Services (NJ), Inc., Logan Township, New Jersey 108
A-4. Water Table Measurements Taken by the Task Force at RES 113
A-5. Duplicate Water Level Measurements Taken by the Task Force 115
A-6. Physical Characteristics of Wells Measured and Sampled by
the Task Force at Rollins Environmental Services 116
A-7. Results of Air Monitoring at Ground Water Monitoring Wells
Sampled by the Task Force at RES 117
A-8. Field Measurements Conducted by the Task Force at RES 118
A-9. Results of Inorganic and Indicator Type Analyses 120
A-10. Results of Total Metals Analyses 123
A-ll. Results of Dissolved Metals Analyses 126
A-12. Results of Volatile Organic Analyses 129
A-13. Results of Semi-volatile Organic Analyses 133
A-14. Tentatively Identified Compounds Requiring Confirmation
Using Authentic Standards 137
-------
-1-
I. Executive Summary
A. Introduction
In 1965 Congress passed the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the first federal
law to require safeguards and encourage environmentally sound methods for
disposal of household, municipal, commercial and industrial refuse. Con-
gress amended this law in 1970 by passing the Resource Recovery Act and
again in 1976 by passing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
As the knowledge about the health and environmental impacts of waste dis-
posal increased, Congress revised RCRA, first in 1980 and again in 1984.
RCRA, including its 1984 amendments, is divided up into subtitles. Sub-
titles C, D, and I set forth the framework for EPA's comprehensive waste
management programs: hazardous waste management, solid waste management
and toxic waste and petroleum products stored in underground tanks.
Parts 260 through 262, Part 263, Parts 264 and 265 of 40 CFR set require-
ments for the generation, transportation, storage or disposal of hazardous
wastes respectively. The regulations for treatment, storage and disposal
facilities (TSDF) are divided into two sets, one for interim status and
the other for permitted TSDF's. The interim status regulations are found
in 40 CFR Part 265, while the permit regulations are found in 40 CFR Part
264.
Section 3006 of Subtitle C of RCRA allows the EPA to authorize the State
hazardous waste program to operate in the State in lieu of the Federal
Hazardous Uaste Program. The State of New Jersey received final authoriza-
tion on February 21, 1985. This authorization does not include program
elements under HSWA.
EPA has recognized that although the basic ground water monitoring require-
ments have been in existence since 1980, some of the commercial TSDFs
have not achieved compliance. Adequate monitoring of the waste management
units is important in order to determine whether the existing units are
releasing hazardous contaminants into the ground water. Accordingly, the
Administrator established a Task Force to evaluate the compliance status
and determine the causes of poor compliance. The Task Force was charged
to conduct in-depth onsite investigations of commercial TSDFs with the
following objectives.
0 Determine compliance with interim status ground water monitoring
requirements of 40 CFR Part 265 as promulgated under RCRA or the
State equivalent (where the State has received RCRA authorization)
0 Evaluate the ground water monitoring program described in the
facility's RCRA Part B permit application for compliance with
40 CFR Part 270.14(c)
0 Determine if the ground water at the facility contains hazardous
waste constituents
-------
-2-
0 Provide information to assist the Agency in determining if the TSDF
meets the EPA ground water monitoring requirements for waste management
facilities receiving waste from response actions conducted under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA), Public Law 91-510
0 Identify significant ground water management, technical and compliance
problems, and take enforcement or other administrative actions to
correct the problems
To address these objectives, each Task Force investigation will determine
if:
0 The facility has developed and is following an adquate ground water
sampling and analysis plan;
0 Designated RCRA and/or State-required monitoring wells are properly
located and constructed;
0 Required analyses have been conducted on samples from the designated
RCRA monitoring wells; and
0 The ground water quality assessment program outline or plan as
appropriate is adequate.
The TSDF investigated by the Task Force was Rollins Environmental Services
(NJ) Inc. (RES) located along the eastern bank of Raccoon Creek in Bridgeport,
New Jersey (Figure 1). RES' EPA indentification number is NJD053288239.
The facility has also operated under the name of Rollins Purle, Inc. The
on-site inspection was conducted from February 9 through February 20, 1987,
and was coordinated by staff of EPA Region II. In general, the investigation
involved reviews of State, Federal and facility records, facility inspection,
laboratory evaluation, and ground water sampling and analysis.
The 78-acre commercial treatment, storage and disposal facility has been in
operation since 1969. RES accepts a wide range of hazardous wastes.
Primarily, the wastes are received in gaseous, liquid and solid form;
however, RES also stores sludges and slurries. Incineration is the only
commercial operation at the facility. Incinerator ash, formerly landfilled
on-site, is now transported elsewhere. Eight unlined surface impoundments
receive scrubber wastewater from the incinerator for cooling and storage
before discharge to Raccoon Creek. The facility also uses two concrete
lined surface impoundments for biological treatment of contaminated
ground water from 18 pumping wells on-site.
The facility notified EPA in November 1980 that it is conducting the following
hazardous waste activities:
0 Transportation of hazadous wastes;
0 SOI - storage in containers;
-------
-3-
0 S04 - storage in surface impoundments;
0 T01 - treatment in tanks;
0 T02 - treatment in surface impoundments;
0 T03 - incineration
RES certified Loss of Interim Status (LOIS) compliance with the applicable
ground water monitoring requirements for the 10 regulated units at the
facility in November 8, 1985.
Task Force Participants
The USEPA - II Project Team included Samuel Ezekwo, Environmental Engineer,
Hazardous Waste Compliance Branch; Jeffrey Gratz, Hydrogeologist, Hazar-
dous Waste Compliance Branch; Ataliah Nesheiwat, Environmental Engineer,
Hazardous Waste Facility Branch; Tom Solecki; Environmental Engineer,
Hazardous Waste Compliance Branch; and from the Environmental Services
Division, Joseph Cosentino, Environmental Scientist; Louis DiGuardia,
Geologist; and Fred Haber, Quality Assurance Specialist. Representing
the State of New Jersey for the Task Force investigation were Tracy
Wagner, Hydrogeologist, Ground-Water Quality Management; Jack Allen,
Environmental Specialist, Southern Region Enforcement. Representing EPA
Headquarters was Brian Lewis, Hydrogeologist. Richard Deluca, David
Billo, Mark Lewis and William Naughton were the contract sampling team
from Alliance Technologies Corporation.
B. Summary of Findings and Conclusions
The findings and conclusions presented in this summary and report reflect
conditions existing at the RES facility in February 1987. Subsequent
actions taken by the facility, the State, and Region II since the
investigation are summarized in the acompanying update memorandum attached
to this report.
In summary, the Task Force has determined that:
0 The interim status ground water monitoring and waste management
programs were inadequate and did not comply with some of the
requirements of the New Jersey Administrative Code (equivalent to
40 CFR, Part 265). In particular, this investigation finds the
scope of RES' assessment program insufficient to adequately
define the rate and extent of migration of hazardous waste or
hazardous waste constituents into the ground water.
0 The ground water monitoring program proposed in RES' 1985 Part B
permit application and subsequent revisions up to the time of the
inspection were deficient with the requirements of 40 CFR 270.14(c)
(specifically with respect to ground water contamination assessment)
and require modification.
0 The Task Force investigation confirmed that the ground water at the
facility contains elevated levels of hazardous waste constituents
above background levels. The ground water contamination is present
in the water table zone and, to a much lesser degree, in the deeper,
but hydraulically connected shallow artesian zone.
-------
-4-
KNMMMOVE WATVM »wm.r co.
•mooeporr OIVISIOM
IROUJNS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE (NJ.) INC
/f-^f^l I-OGAN TOWNSHIP PLANT \
Location of RES (NJ) in Logan
Township. Bridgeport, N.J.
-------
-5-
0 Prior to the time of investigation, the facility was considered
unacceptable to receive hazardous waste from response actions conducted
under CERCLA owing to (1) known releases of hazardous waste constituents
into the environment and (2) non-compliance with applicable ground water
monitoring regulations. The findings of the Task Force investigation
confirm RES' unacceptabilMy in receiving hazardous waste from CERCLA
response actions.
0 RES certified LOIS compliance with the interim status ground water
monitoring regulations in 1985 and was not considered in significant
non-compliance before the investigation. RES has followed the 1981
State AGO and, as a result, has installed numerous monitoring wells at
various depths throughout the site. However, the Task Force evaluation
noted a number of violations of interim status standards which included
deficiencies in waste management practices and ground water Sampling and
Analysis Plan requirements. The following is a more detailed discussion
of investigation findings and conclusions.
1. Ground Water Monitoring During Interim Status
RES documented ground water contamination beneath its facility soon after
operations began in 1969. The first ground water assessment study was
submitted in early 1972, and by the end of the same year, RES had installed
25 wells, 6 of which were part of a pumping system. The purpose of the
pumping system was to intercept, pump, and decontaminate the underlying
ground water. RES continuously upgraded this abatement system through
agreements with EPA and NJDEP, a signed 1981 Consent Order with NJDEP, and
an unsigned 1983 Consent Order with NJDEP. RES' monitoring system remains
essentially unchanged since 1983 except for the addition of several wells
pursuant to a NJDEP request and RCRA requirements. Currently, RES samples
regularly from approximately 55 monitoring wells. The facility's abatement
system utilizes 17 pumping wells intermittently which pump an average of
125,000 gallons per day of contaminated ground water.
In the late 1970s, as a result of plant modifications and pressure from the
regulatory community, RES began to scale down its operations and close
many of its hazardous waste management units. The only remaining
operational sources of contamination are RCRA units. These include the 8
unlined L-series lagoons and concrete-lined treatment units, Basins B-206
and B207. While RES acknowledges that the L-series lagoons leak contaminants
into the ground water, it contends that the other two RCRA units which are
concrete-lined, adequately contain wastes. However, because these units
treat the same contaminated ground water which underlies them, a detection
monitoring program can not detect a release of hazardous waste or hazardous
waste constituents from these units. All 10 RCRA units, therefore, are
in an assessment monitoring program which is part of a larger site-wide
assessment/corrective action program pursuant to a 1981 State ACO. It
should be noted that the RCRA land disposal units will cease accepting
waste prior to November, 1988.
-------
-6-
While RES has been following the 1981 State AGO (and later updated their
program in accordance with an unsigned 1983 AGO), this investigation finds
the scope of RES' assessment program insufficient to adequately define the
rate and extent of migration of hazardous waste or hazardous waste con-
stituents or their concentrations in the ground water as required under
40 CFR §265.93 (d)(4). While the facility has installed numerous monitoring
wells at various depths throughout the site, several deficiencies in the
system cause it to be inadequate to fully delineate the contaminant
plume(s). For example, monitoring wells have been installed at RES for
the past 18 years yet are highly variable in quality. Construction details
for many wells are incomplete or non-existent. Some of the wells in the
South Marsh Area were driven as well points and were not meant to be used
for rigorous ground water monitoring. Poor well installation (inadequate
annular seals) in some of the MA-series wells may, in fact, be a
contributing factor to deep ground water contamination in the North Marsh
Area. Also, the sampling parameters which RES uses to define the
contaminant plume (although specified in the 1981 State AGO) are
insufficient to delineate the extent of ground water contamination,
particularly with respect to organic constituents.
This Task Force recommends that RES significantly expand its sampling and
analysis plan to include specific organic constituents. The horizontal
and vertical extent of comtamination must be determined by using both
organic and inorganic parameters. Specific areas which require more
rigorous sampling include the North Marsh Area, the South Marsh Area, and
the shallow artesian zone (a deeper water-bearing zone) throughout the
site. Wells of poor construction quality should be sealed and data
collected from them be used in this context. A future change to the plant
site includes the closure of the L-series lagoons which is to be initiated
at the end of 1988. Because their closure will affect ground water flow
in the area (the L-series lagoons have acted as a ground water mound),
this change should be modeled now so that the abatement system can be
modified as lagoon closure occurs. While the pump and treat abatement
system has been a very positive element in RES' site-wide corrective
action program, it may also require modification once the full extent of
ground water contamination has been determined. Finally, all previous
data, which include a wealth of well logs, well tests, and ground water
analyses, should be fully integrated with future work so that a clearer
picture of hydrogeology and ground water/soil contamination and,
consequently, a more efficient and effective corrective action program at
RES can be developed.
2. Ground Water Sampling and Analysis Plan
Deficiencies were found in RES' sampling and analysis plan dated January,
1987. These deficiencies vary from initial safety considerations at the
wellhead to inadequate analytical methods for TOX. The plan lacks suffi-
cient detail in explaining the methods used to detect immiscible contaminants
-------
-7-
and ensuring well integrity (measurement of total depth to monitor
silting). Deficiencies are noted in other areas of the plan such as
purge methods, field measurements, recordkeeping, sampling,
chain-of-custody, well construction, and analytical methods. Adequate
cleaning procedures for sampling equipment must be outlined and the
use of trip blanks needs to be detailed.
3. Audit of Currently Used Laboratories
The evaluation of the analytical work of the laboratories being used
by RES at the time of this investigation is included in the technical
report. Inadequacies were found in the following areas:
a. RES' procedures for determining TOX levels is inappropriate. The
methods being applied can miss certain groups of halogenated
compounds and lack sensitivity of the method EPA considers as
appropriate for TOX measurement (Method 9020 of SW-846).
b. RES uses an arbitrarily chosen detection limit of 1 mg/1 for TOX and
does not report amounts measured that are under 1 mg/1. Such practice
does not allow the data user to identify or measure changes that
occur when total levels present are less than 1 mg/1.
c. The level of quality assurance and quality control practiced in their
TOX determinations does not provide adequate confidence in the relia-
bility of the data for the compounds that are determined by the RES
procedure.
4. Well Sampling Data Analysis
Data generated as a result of ground water sampling by the Task Force
confirm ground water contamination beneath the RCRA-regulated L-series
lagoons and much of the rest of the 78-acre facility. Ground water from
23 monitoring wells was analyzed for Appendix IX constituents. The
highest levels of contamination were found at wells around the L-series
lagoons, the Central Plant Area and in the vicinity of Well MA-1 in the
North Marsh Area. Contamination is not limited to the upper reaches of
the water table zone; the deeper wells in the North Marsh Area showed
contamination (particularly organics) as well. Of the three "shallow
artesian zone" wells sampled in the deepest water-bearing zone at
RES, only 1 showed any significant levels of contamination.
Monitoring wells around the L-series lagoons showed ground water with the
highest concentrations of dissolved solids. For instance, the highest
concentrations of the cations calcium (515 ppm) and magnesium (299 ppm) were
found at Well 25, near the northwest corner of the L-series lagoons. Sodium
-------
-8-
concentrations were very high in both the L-series lagoon area (738 ppm -
Well 25) and in isolated spots in the North Marsh Area (1,570 ppm - Well
MA-2D). The same is true of potassium (19.7 ppm - Well 25, 54.4 ppm -
Well MA-2D). Total and dissolved metals were high along the periphery of
the L-series lagoons and at nested wells MA-1 and MA-2 in the North Marsh
Area. The highest nickel (150 ppm) and vanadium (.311 ppm) concentrations
were found in MA-2D. Barium (.121 ppm), iron (151 ppm) and manganese
(2.44 ppm) concentrations were highest in MA-IS.
While inorganic contamination is widespread at the site, organic
concentration is predominant in the North Marsh Area (near MA-1 and
MA-2) and in the Central Plant Area (Well 17). For example MA-IS contained
the ground water with the highest concentrations of benzene (3,100 ug/1),
4-chloraniline (27,000 ug/1), toluene (1000 ug/1), napthalene (1,000 ug/1)
and other organics. Well 29 was contaminated with some of the following
organic constituents: trichloroethene (230 ug/1), 2,4 dichlorophenol
(170 ug/1), and bis(2-chloroethyl) ether (200 ug/1). Shallow artesian zone
Well DP-5 was contaminated with 1,2-Dichloropropane (180 ug/1) and
trichloroethene (20 ug/1). Low levels of furans were found in MW4 (HpCDF -
20.1 ppt). Many organic compounds were tentatively identified and need to
be confirmed by using authentic standards for those specific compounds.
The ground water analytic results confirmed the presence of organic and
inorganic contamination in the ground water beneath the RES site. The
RCRA regulated L-series lagoons as well as various solid waste management
units (SWMUs) and hazardous waste spills on the site have probably
contributed to the degredation of the ground water.
5. Comprehensive Evaluation Inspection
Observations of waste management procedures and a review of records
maintained at RES identified several Class I and Class II violations.
These include: labels not visible on a small number of drums on both pad
#1 and pad #2; no waste analysis plan for outgoing wastes; inspection
schedule does not identify all areas/items to be investigated during the
inspection (Kiln ash area, sumps and storage areas where hazardous
waste is stored for less than 90 days); inadequate aisle space for four
containers on drum pad #1; no written agreements designating primary
emergency authority to a specific police or fire department; no agreements
with others to provide support to the primary emergency authorities; no
agreements with local fire departments to inspect the facility on a
regular basis with at least two inspections annually; contingency plan
did not list addressess and phone numbers (home) of all persons qualified
to act as emergency coordinators to include primary and secondary; and the
closure plan did not adequately include decontamination procedures during
closure for drum pad #2 and Kiln ash storage area. Inspection of surface
impoundments did not include inspection for the leaks, deterioration or
failure in the impoundments.
-------
-9-
II. Technical Report
A. Regulatory Requirements
In 1965, the Solid Waste Disposal Act was passed with the primary purpose
of improving solid waste disposal methods. It was amended in 1970 by
the Resource Recovery Act, again in 1976 by the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA).
RCRA was enacted by PL 94-580, October 21, 1976; 90, 42 U.S.C. 6901
et. seq.; amended by PL 95-609, November 8, 1978; PL 96-463, October 15,
i960; PL-96482, October 21, 1980; PL96-510, December 11, 1980; PL
97-272, September 30, 1982; PL-98-45, July 12, 1983; PL 98-371, July
18, 1984; PL98-616, and November 8, 1984.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is currently divided into
nine Subtitles, A through I. Subtitles C, D and I lay out the framework
for the three programs that make up RCRA.
Subtitle C of the Act establishes a program to manage hazardous waste from
cradle to grave. The objective of this program is to assure that hazardous
waste is handled in a manner that protects human health and the environ-
ment. The regulations are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
Title 40, Chapter I, Subchapter I, Parts 264, 265 and 270. As a result
of the Hazardous & Solid Waste Admendments of 1984 (HSWA), new standard
for treatment and disposal of restricted waste became effective on
November 8, 1986. These regulation are found in 40 CFR Part 268.
Section 3006 of Subtitle C of RCRA allows EPA to authorize a State hazardous
waste program to operate in a State in lieu of the Federal Hazardous
Waste Program. Under this section, States could either apply for
interim or final authorization. Interim authorization is received in
two phases: Phase I and Phase II. Upon the State implementing a
program "substantially equivalent" to the RCRA program the State can
apply for final authorization, a program equivalent to, and no less
stringent than the Federal Program.
The State of New Jersey received Phase I interim authorization on February
2, 1983. Phase I allowed them to operate the regulations covering 40
CFR Parts 260 through 263, and 265. Phase IIA and IIB interim authoriza-
tions were granted to New Jersey on April 6, 1984. However, since
New Jersey's application for Phase IIA and Phase IIB interim authorization
was submitted after the deadline for inclusion of surface impoundments
(January 26, 1983), their interim authorization only included the
responsibility for permitting storage and treatment in tanks, containers,
and incinerators. Phase II usually covers 40 CFR Parts 124, 264, and
270.
-------
-10-
New Jersey applied for permitting authority of land disposal facilities
on August 3, 1984. Their revised and complete application for final
authorization was submitted on August 20, 1984. EPA published its intent
to grant final authorization effective on February 21, 1985. This authori-
zation did not include authorization for the Hazardous & Solid Waste
Admendments.
New Jersey's RCRA program is run primarily by Division of Waste Management.
However, since ground-water protection is delegated to Division of Water
Resources, they take primary responsibility for RCRA ground-water issues.
New Jersey's program is more stringent than the Federal program in the
following aspects:
o
Waste oil is listed as a hazardous waste, consequently, more
facilities are regulated;
0 No exemptions are provided from the ground water monitoring
program;
0 No waivers are granted during the interim status.
1. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Responsibilities
NJDEP is responsible for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD)
facilities within the State of New Jersey's borders as well as carrying
out the other aspects of the RCRA program. NJDEP is also responsible for
enforcement. Further, NJDEP must assist EPA in the implementation of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).
2. Environmental Protection Agency's Responsibilities
EPA provides the State of New Jersey with Federal funding. EPA regularly
evaluates New Jersey's administration and enforcement of its hazardous
waste program to ensure that the authorized program is being implemented
consistent with RCRA. EPA also retains the right to conduct inspections
and request information under Section 3007 of RCRA, and to enforce certain
provisions of New Jersey State law. Currently, under Section 3006(g) of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6226(g), the new requirements and prohibitions imposed
by HSWA take effect in authorized States. EPA must carry out these
requirements until the States are authorized for HSWA. Therefore, EPA
will administer HSWA in New Jersey until New Jersey applies for and
receives authorization for HSWA. Therefore, EPA's direct responsibilities
include:
0 Waiver requests;
0 Solid Waste Management Units (SWMU);
0 Land Disposal Restriction; and
0 Corrective Action
-------
-11-
B. Investigation Methods and Procedures
The Hazardous Waste Ground Water Task Force Investigation of RES facility
consisted of:
0 Reviewing and evaluating records and documents from EPA Region II,
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and RES (NJ);
0 Conducting a Compliance Evaluation Inspection (i.e., visual inspec-
tion of waste management units, operation, manifests);
0 Evaluating on-site and off-site analytical laboratories;
0 Sampling and analyzing data from selected ground water monitoring
wells.
0 Conducting a Comprehensive Ground Water Monitoring Evaluation (CME).
1. Records/Documents Review
Records and documents from EPA Region II and the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection offices compiled by an EPA contractor, were
reviewed prior to and during the on-site inspection. On-site facility
records were reviewed to verify and supplement information currently in
Government file. Documents requiring further evaluation were copied by
the Task Force during the inspection. Information regarding facility
operation, construction details of waste management units and ground-water
monitoring program were reviewed.
Specifically, records and documents that were reviewed included the ground
water sampling and analysis plan (s), outline of the facility ground water
sampling, monitoring well construction data and logs, site geologic report,
site operation plans, facility permits, waste management unit design and
operating records showing the general types, quantities and location of
wastes disposal of at the facility.
Generally, records and documents were also reviewed to address compliane
with administrative, non-technical and technical requirements of 40 CFR
Part 265, Subparts B through R and the New Jersey Administrative Code
7:26-6,7,8,9 and 11 et seq.
2. Comprehensive Ground Water Monitoring Evaluation
This evaluation composed of an office and field evaluation. The emphasis
was to determine compliance with the Federal and State of New Jersey
interim status ground-water monitoring requirements (40 CFR Part 265
Subpart F and N.J.A.C. 7:14A - 6.1 _ejt _se_£.)• Compliance with the require
ments of 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart F was also investigated.
All existing records and documents from NJDEP and EPA - Region II were
compiled by a contractor working for EPA - Headquarters.
-------
-12-
Each participating group (Region, State and Headquarters) reviewed the
materials prior to the on-site inspection to generate information covering
the following:
0 Probable areas of noncompliance with 40 CFR Part 265 Subpart F
requirements;
0 Probable existence and nature of contamination of the ground water;
0 Other shortcomings in monitoring system design and operation;
0 Validity and comprehensiveness of existing data;
0 Useful activities to be conducted during the site inspection;
0 Effectiveness of corrective action or closure operations.
Several meetings were held between EPA-Region II and NJDEP to discuss
the site and choose sampling locations for the inspection. Site
reconnaissance was conducted to verify the practicality of the inspection
strategy and familiarize the Task Force members with RES facility.
Twenty three of possible 130 wells were selected for sampling. One field/
equipment blank was taken per day of the inspection.
The "Characterization of Site Hydrogeology Worksheet" from the draft ver-
sion of the RCRA Ground Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance
Document was used as a guideline for the office evaluation. The Work-
sheet questions were answered using the Part B and any supporting docu-
ments supplied by RES. Further, several interviews were conducted per-
taining to hydrogeology and the ground water monitoring system. One of
these interviews was conducted on Tuesday February 17, 1987 where RES
was represented by their hydrogeological consultant, Geraghty & Miller, Inc,
3. Ground Water Sampling and Analysis
During the inspection, Task Force personnel collected samples for analysis
from twenty three ground water monitoring wells to determine if the ground
water contains hazardous waste constituents or other indications of con-
tamination. Wells were selected for sampling principally in areas where
records show or suggest that ground water quality was affected by hazardous
waste management activities.
All wells were purged of at least three well casing volumes of water with
either a teflon bailer, stainless steel bailer or a stainless steel sub-
mersible (grundfos sp-2). The grundfos pump used to purge three wells was
field decontaminated between each use by operating the pump in a de-ionized
water and non-phosphate soap solution, followed by operation in de-ionized
water as a rinse. The outside of the pump and the first ten feet of cable
-------
-13-
were then wiped down with hexane and allowed to dry. All other purging
and sampling equipment was laboratory cleaned and prepared prior to use.
Purge water was measured for pH, temperture, and conductivity at the be-
ginning, middle and end of purging. All samples were collected with a
teflon or stainless steel bailer.
Twelve field/equipment blanks were also taken during sampling at RES.
Following the collection of the samples, EPA's contractor, Alliance,
placed the samples in coolers containing ice. Samples were preserved,
and if necessary, filtered upon return to the staging area. Packaging
was conducted in accordance with applicable Department of Transportation
regulations for shipment to the EPA contract laboratories. As
required under RCRA (40 CFR 265.92(a)(4)) , receipt for samples were
offered to and signed by facility personnel. Samples were split
with the facility.
4. Evaluation of On-site and Off-site Analytical Labs
The RES and contractor laboratories handling ground water samples were
evaluated regarding their respective responsibilities under the RES
ground water sampling and analysis plan. Analytical equipment and methods,
quality assurance procedures and records were examined for adequacy.
Laboratory records were inspected for completeness, accuracy and compliance
with the State and Federal requirements. The ability of each laboratory
to produce quality data for the required analysis was also evaluated.
5. Compliance Evaluation Inspection
The Compliance Evaluation Inspection conducted in February, 1987, included
identifying past and present waste management units and reviewing waste
management operations. The units were reviewed to address the technical
requirements of 40 CFR 265 Subpart I-R and N.J.A.C. 7:26-9,11 et seq.
The inspection procedures to verify compliance with these Subparts included a
series of checkpoints and documentation, and use of the New Jersey RCRA
inspection checklist.
-------
-14-
C. Facility Description
1. General Information
In 1970 Rollins-Purle, Inc. began operation of a waste disposal at
Bridgeport, New Jersey. Following a number of reorganizations, the
owner-operator is now known as Rollins Environmental Services (NO)
Inc., a New Jersey Corporation. Rollins Environmental Services (RES)
with head offices in Wilmington, Delaware, is a publicly-held company
with shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange.
Facility Address: Rollins Environmental Services (NJ)
Route 322 and Route 295
Bridgeport N.J. 08014
Mailing Address: Rollins Environmental Services (NJ)
P.O. Box 337
Bridgeport N.J. 08014
Telephone Number: (609) 467-3100
Facility Contact: Donald J. Frost
Technical Manager
Facility Owner: Rollins Environmental Services
Facility ID #: NJD 053 288 239
Type of Operation: Transportation, storage, treatment and
disposal of hazardous waste
2. Description of Facility Operations
A general description of the facility operations will be given here.
A more detailed description of each waste management unit can be found
in the RCRA inspection report.
RES is a 78-acre commercial treatment, storage and disposal facility
located in Bridgeport, New Jersey. The facility has been in operation
since 1969. RES' incinerator was built in 1969 and commenced operation
in 1970. The facility accepts a wide range of hazardous waste: pesti-
cides - DDT and Lindane; halogenated aliphatic hydrocarbons; monocyclic
aromatics; phthalate esters; polycyclic aromatics; ketones; alcohols;
and miscellaneous volatiles (acrolein, ethylether, and, acrylonitrite).
Incineration is the only commercial operation at the facility. The
biological treatment system is used for the treatment of wastes generated
on site (contaminated ground water and sanitary wastes). Besides the
biological treatment system impoundments (B-206, B-207), all other
treatment units have been discontinued. RES (NJ) is the only commercial
hazardous waste incinerator facility in Region II.
-------
-15-
In December, 1985, the facility submitted a revised Part A application
for the following processes:
Unit
SOl-storage in containers
S02-storage in tanks
S04-storage in surface impoundment
TOl-treatment in tanks
T03-Incineration
Capacity
121,550 gallons
406,000 gallons
3,000,000 gallons
6,813,300 gallons/day
19.7 tons/hr
Currently, RES operates the incinerator under interim status regulations.
Wastes are incinerated in gaseous, liquid and solid form. Incinerator
ash, formerly landfilled on-site, is now transported to secure hazardous
waste landfills elsewhere. Eight interconnected unlined surface impoundments
(called L-Series lagoons) receive scrubber wastewater from the incinerator
for cooling. Two concrete lined biological treatment surface impoundments
are used to treat contaminated ground water from 18 pumping wells on-site.
All 10 units are RCRA regulated and discharge to Raccoon Creek under the
terms of RES's NJPDES permit. RES plans to close all its RCRA surface
impoundments. A closure/ post-closure plan was submitted for all
process water discharge lagoons. Above ground tanks will be installed
to replace the 10 storage and treatment surface impoundments.
3. Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs)
Solid waste management units include any discernable waste management unit
from which hazardous constituents may migrate, irrespective of whether the
unit was intended for the management of solid or hazardous wastes. The
following type of units are therefore included in the definition of SWMUs:
landfills, surface impoundment, waste piles, land treatment units, incine-
rator, injection wells, tanks (including 90 days accumulations tanks),
container storage areas and transfer stations. In addition to these types
of units, certain areas associated with production processes at facilities
which have become contaminated as a result of routine, systematic and
deliberate releases of wastes, are also considered to be solid waste
management units. A product may become a waste if it is abandoned or
discarded.
The SWMUs identified by NJDEP and EPA at the site include:
ff of Units Descriptions
11
Unlined lagoons closed as a landfill in 1978
(NJDEP approved closure)
-------
-16-
# of Units Description
2 Cemment vaults containing 3695 cubic yards
of drummed arsenic salts.
15 Lined surface impoundments closed in 1978
(NJDEP approved closure)
21 Tanks to store various aliphatic aromatic, in-
cluding PCBs. Destroyed by fire in 1977
1 Trickling filter unit, used to treat contaminated
ground water, closed in 1979
2 Container storage pads, in operation from 1973-1978
-------
-17-
D. Ground Water Monitoring Program During Interim Status
1. RES Compliance History
a. Early Plant History - 1970s
Rollins Environmental Services (RES) was constructed in 1969 as a disposal
site (Figure 2) for a wide range of of industrial process wastes. Several
processes employed at the site, which included incineration, biological
and physical-chemical treatment and landfill ing, were applied to the
disposal of various classes of wastes. Throughout the 1970s the facility
incurred numerous operational problems and was subject to almost continuous
modification. By 1971, approximately 18 basins of varying sizes and
construction quality were developed on the site (Figure 3). Initially six
of these basins were clay lined; these included receiving and neutra-
lizing basins as well as the organic filter beds which were supposed to
provide biological degradation of organic wastes.
It became apparent in 1971 that the basins were leaking and causing
contamination of the ground water. The first confirmed evidence of
ground water contamination at RES was gathered in 1971. Analyses of
samples from shallow monitoring wells at the site showed elevated levels
of acidity, total dissolved solids, nitrates, and metals. The facility
was ordered by the State to commence decontamination activities on
October 20, 1971. In reports dated April, 1972 and October, 1972, RES'
consultants, Geraghty and Miller, Inc., provided results of a ground
water contamination study and submitted a proposed abatement program. By
this time RES had installed approximately 25 wells, all of which were
screened in the water table aquifer. Six of the wells were abatement
wells for the purpose of intercepting, containing, pumping and decontami-
nating ground water. This abatement program, the details of which are
sketchy, presumably began shortly after a second State Order was issued
on October 20, 1972. It was also agreed that RES would initiate a program
to reline (with concrete, soil-cement and plastic) or eliminate the
unlined basins at the facility.
The ground water remediation program continued through the 1970s. In
1975, deeper wells were installed to monitor the shallow artesian zone.
Wells were continually added to the monitoring system. Evaluations were
made on the abatement system in 1975 and 1978 by Geraghty and Miller,
Inc. Based on their recommendations, the system was modified with the
addition of more abatement wells. A more detailed discussion on the
history of RES' ground water monitoring system will be presented in
subsequent sections.
b. Events Surrounding the 1981 Administrative Consent Order
In December of 1977, a fire and explosion occurred in the tank farm area
of the facility. Eighteen of thirty-one tanks were destroyed. Corrective
-------
-18-
(a)
(b)
Figure 2. Location of RES (NJ) facility with respect to (a) the Delaware
River and surrounding townships and (b) counties within the
state of New Jersey. From RES (1985) and Hardt (1963).
-------
ro
U)
• E Well Location
• —— Active Facility Boundary
Rollins Environmental Services Facility Map - 1972
-------
-20-
actions included the removal of the top foot of soil in the area as well
as the removal of approximately 120,000 gallons of contaminated liquids
and firewater. As a result of the incident various organic contaminants
were released to ground and surface water. Organic contamination is most
prevalent near the North Marsh Area with the highest contamination being
found in water samples from Well 4A. As a result of the explosion and
fire, NJDEP ordered RES to cease operation in 1977. On June 9, 1978,
Rollins was issued a reopening Order. To comply with the Order, RES was
required to submit annual ground water reports and submit closure plans
for the B-series units (now the Basin Closure Area) in the northeastern
portion of the facility. NJDEP began monthly Inspections at the facility.
Between 1970-1974 an "arsenic dump" (Figure 3) was in operation adjacent
to B-202G in the Basin Closure Area. The facility contends that this
area is a "vault" lined in concrete where sealed drums of arsenic were
disposed. An internal NJDEP memo dated March 4, 1980 noted that there
were no wells in the immediate area. It was recommended that a ground
water monitoring well be installed in the "immediate vicinity of the
arsenic dump in order to monitor possible ground water contamination."
In June, 1980, RES submitted arsenic analyses from wells south of basin
B-202G. Although sampling results indicated that there were arsenic
levels above background (0.36 ug/1 at Well G) at the facility, it could
not be shown that the contamination was directly attributed to the arsenic
vaults.
On September 22, 1980, RES was issued a Temporary Operating Authorization
(TOA) requiring the facility to discontinue disposal of hazardous wastes
into Basins B-202G and B-205C (Figure 4). RES contested this decision and,
as a result, an Administrative Consent Order was entered into on October
29, 1980, by the facility and NJDEP. The Order included the following
specific requirements:
1) RES was to discontinue depositing waste materials in any basin or
land depression except for B-202G and B-205C which were subject to
the terms and conditions of the Order. RES could continue to deposit
incinerator scrubber sludges in settling lagoons (L310-L317) in
compliance with their then current NJPDES discharge permit.
2) RES was to repair the existing liner of B-205C and place an impermeable
liner on top of material in the basin. These tasks were to be completed
by December 31, 1980. During this time B-202F was to be used as an
interim storage location. After reparations all wastes which had
accumulated in B-202F were to be transferred back to B-205C. RES was
also to repair B-202G.
3) All wastes placed in B-205C subsequent to September 22, 1980, would
be subject to a solidification/stabilization process. The Order set
out a work schedule with compliance dates for the development and
-------
(D
Well Location
Active Facility Boundary
i
to
Rollins Environmental Services Facility Map - 1980
-------
-22-
implementation of this process. This would all be incorporated into
a phased closure of the Basin Area which would take several years.
4) A formal Basin Closure Plan was to be submitted to NJDEP by December
1980, for approval.
RES submitted a Basin Closure Plan prepared by Geraghty and Miller
to NJDEP on June 27, 1980. It was subsequently revised and resubmitted
on June 12, 1981 along with a Plan by Weston (for engineering and
design). These plans incorporated the on-going solidification process
outlined in the compliance schedule of the October 29, 1980 ACO.
NJDEP reviewed the plans and proposed minor modifications. These
minor modifications were incorporated into an addendum dated July 22,
1981. The Basin Closure Plan was a phased plan whereby the basins
would be closed in sequence. Those basins which lay in the water
table would have the waste removed and stabilized, a soil base
installed, and wastes redeposited by compaction. A polyethylene cap
would cover the Basin Closure Area followed by a flow zone and
vegetation. Ground water monitoring and neutron probes were to be the
major method by which the adequacy of the closure would be measured.
The purpose of the cap was to inhibit the infiltration of surface
water into the closed basins. This would reduce the quantity of
leachate generated from the basins and aid in overall ground water
decontamination at the site. Although neutron tubes are in the ground,
the neutron probe program is still non-existent and ground water
monitoring around the area is inadequate.
On September 23, 1981, NJDEP issued an Administrative Order to RES which
addressed the entire ground water monitoring program at the site. This
order included the following specific requirements:
1) RES was required to complete an investigation of ground water
contamination found in the North Marsh Area by September 30, 1981.
Wells were to be installed as part of this study (the MA series).
New abatement wells were proposed (30 series).
2) RES was required to install four monitoring wells (AV series)
monitor the arsenic vaults by September 30, 1981.
to
3)
4)
RES was to conduct a pump test;
installed through this Order).
utilizing Well DP4 (a well to be
RES was to change their monitoring well configuration by sealing some
wells that were no longer used and adding wells in locations where
information was lacking or where wells of poor construction quality
were to be replaced.
-------
-23-
5) RES was to plan and implement an abatement system such that the abatement
wells yielded sufficient ground water to maintain a hydrologic barrier
to prevent off-site migration of contaminants. The Order outlined
some specific conditions of the planned system. The yield was not to
be less than 15 gpm for any well and a pumping schedule was to be
supplied. RES was to implement the system by March 1, 1982.
6) RES was required to sample specific wells for specific parameters.
28 wells were to be sampled quarterly for TDS, TOC, pH and TOX. 19
wells were to be sampled on an annual basis for an expanded list
which included the above parameters along with these additional
parameters: arsenic, cadmium, chromium (total), copper, lead, zinc,
nitrate as nitrogen and phenol. 15 wells were to be sampled quarterly
for arsenic and 4 wells quarterly for PCBs.
7) RES was to incorporate the new marsh wells into this monitoring program
if contamination was found.
8) RES was to continue to submit annual ground water monitoring reports.
9) RES was to implement the Basin Closure Plan as described in the Geraghty
and Miller Basin Closure Plan of June 12, 1981, the Westin Basin Closure
Plan of June 12, 1981 and the addendum to the RES Basin Closure Plan of
July 22, 1981. These plans would be implemented after approval by the
Delaware River Basin Commission which reviewed the ground water aspects
of the plan. RES was still responsible for submitting a specific monitor-
ing plan for NJDEP approval.
10) RES was to implement a program to "Characterize Waste Through Ground
Water Monitoring" by sampling 5 wells in the Basin Closure Area. RES
was to submit this report by October 31, 1981.
On September 30, 1981 RES submitted a report, "Investigation of Ground
Water Quality Conditions in the Marsh Area in the Northwest Corner of the
Rollins Environmental Service Plant, Bridgeport, New Jersey." The report
addressed the requirements of the above Administrative Order. Wells to
monitor contamination near the arsenic vaults were also installed; however,
two of the wells were not installed according to required specifications
and had to be redrilled. RES installed Well DP4 on October 5th and 6th
and conducted a well test on October 15th and 16th. On November 23, 1981,
Rollins and NJDEP entered into an Administrative Consent Order. This
order addressed some of the submittals of September 30, 1981 and also
made some stricter requirements for sampling parameters. Otherwise it
was similar to the previous AO. It included the following:
1) RES was required to replace monitoring wells AV-3 and AV-4 which were
installed improperly around the arsenic vaults.
-------
-24-
2) By November 6, 1981, RES was to submit the findings of the shallow
artesian well test. The purpose of the well test was to determine
the extent of hydraulic connection between the water table aquifer
and the shallow artesian zone as well as aquifer characteristics of
the shallow artesian zone.
3) RES was to sample 23 wells for the expanded list of parameters referred
to in the previous Order. This included the deep wells which were
previously only to be sampled for TDS, TOC, pH and TOX. Besides
these changes most conditions of this Order were similar those of the
Administrative order outlined above.
Subsequent to the Order, several revisions were made based on yearly
ground water reports and the Abatement Well Testing Program Report of
August, 1982. More abatement wells were added in 1982 and 1983 and
pumpage rates were again revised. On August 1, 1983 a new draft
Administrative Consent Order was circulated for comment. This Order
was never finalized; however, RES contends that they presently follow
the intent of the Order in good faith. By mid-1983 eleven additional
abatement wells were added to the system. The efficiency of each
well was evaluated and new pumping rates were determined. By June,
1983, RES was averaging a monthly pumping rate of 40 gallons per
minute. Soon after the draft 1983 Order was issued, the pumping rate
was increased to 100 gallons per minute.
On September 11, 1984, RES met with the State to again modify their
ground water monitoring program. This modification, however, which
included the deletion of some wells from the sampling program and the
addition of others was not agreed upon and never followed. The
monitoring/abatement system has not changed dramatically since 1983
when the system was upgraded. By 1983 all wells in the Basin Closure
Area were removed because of closure operations. On October 16, 1983,
NJDEP prepared an "Environmental Assessment" of RES. The original
purpose of developing this extensive document was to address the
issue of whether or not PCBs could safely be incinerated at the RES
site. With time, however, the project expanded and became an in-depth
study of all aspects of the environment (air, surface water, ground
water) which could be affected by any past and present operations at
the facility. The report concluded that while contamination existed
in the water table aquifer (shallow aquifer) and minor contamination
existed in the shallow artesian zone (deeper aquifer), the remediation
efforts underway at the facility (expanded abatement system and Basin
Closure) "should produce positive results in the future."
c. Part B Submittal and LOIS Certification
In March, 1985, RES submitted a RCRA Part B application which addressed
ground water monitoring requirements at surface impoundments. RCRA
regulated surface impoundments (units which accepted waste on or after
-------
-25-
November 19, 1980) included the unlined L-series lagoons and biological
treatment surface impoundments B-206 and B-207. On May 2, 1985, NJDEP
informed RES that they did not have an adequate ground water detection
monitoring program pursuant to 40 CFR 265.90 and N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.3.
Although NJDEP recognized there were many existing monitoring wells at the
facility, RES was still required to implement a separate ground water
detection monitoring program for the RCRA impoundments per N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.3.
RES was warned that if they did not comply with these requirements they
would not be able to certify compliance by November 8, 1985 (the LOIS
deadline) and their Interim Status would be terminated.
RES responded on May 17, 1985, by referring to the 1981 AGO. They described
the specific requirements of that Order as an Alternative Monitoring Program
which they felt complied with the NJDEP's request. RES, however, installed
new wells around the B-206 and B-207 impoundments to satisfy one of the
specific requests of NJDEP's May 2 letter.
On August 20, 1985, NJDEP issued a formal Notice of Deficiency (NOD) in
response to RES' March, 1985, Part B application submittal. RES resub-
mitted the Part B application in December, 1985. On December 3, 1985 a
LOIS (Loss of Interim Status) inspection took place at the facility. As a
result of the inspection, RES was found to satisfy the minimum requirements
of LOIS for both ground water monitoring and financial responsibility. It
is important to note that, even though they passed the ground water
inspection for minimum physical compliance (1 upgradient well, 3 downgradient
wells), it was not an evaluation of the technical adequacy of the system.
On April 17, 1986, NJDEP sent an NOD to the facility in response to RES'
latest Part B submittal. The State found RES' application deficient with
respect to ground water monitoring requirements. The State requested the
submission of closure plans for the L-series lagoons and the biological
treatment surface impoundments B-206 and B-207. The following is an
outline of the specific ground water deficiencies and the request for
information:
1) Interim Status ground water monitoring data:
- a request for information regarding statistical analyses
- a sampling and analysis plan
2) Topographic map
- a need to submit a topographic map which delineates the hazardous
waste management area and points of compliance for the L-series
lagoons and B-206 and B-207.
3) PI ume description
- RES should provide a description of any plume of contamination
entering the ground water. NJDEP deemed the total dissolved solids
(TDS) contour which had historically outlined contamination to be
inadequate.
-------
-26-
4) Ground water monitoring program
- RES needs to implement an adequate detection monitoring program
to determine whether B-206 and B-207 are leaking. The program
has to take into consideration the types of hazardous material in
the impoundments and their effects on liner materials.
- A corrective action program now being implemented is inadequate.
RES must determine the rate and extent of contamination at the
site. This includes an evaluation of each hazardous constituent
(only indicator parameters were used in the past) found in the
ground water.
RES responded to the NOD on May 15, 1986. Their submittal also included
an Interim Status Facility Partial Closure and Post-Closure Plan for all
RCRA surface impoundments. In their response, RES delineated 30 wells to
be used as a part of a long-term assessment program. These wells would not
monitor a specific RCRA unit, as RES contended several plumes at the site
could not be differentiated; therefore, the system would consider the
entire plume area. This new monitoring program was a significant revision
from the program in the NJDEP 1981 Consent Order which required RES to
monitor 45 wells. RES contended that the analytical suite would be expanded
to make the new system a more efficient and effective one. RES argued
that a statistical analysis was unnecessary as the facility was in a State
Corrective Action Program and, although it argued that B-206 and B-207
were not leaking, the facility would treat these units as if they were
(i.e., these units would be in Corrective Action as well).
With respect to NJDEP's request for information concerning site hydrology,
RES referred the State to reports prepared as a result of a shallow artesian
zone well test in October, 1981, water table zone well tests in July, 1982,
and assorted well logs. RES sent a new topographic map delineating RCRA
regulated units and points of compliance. In response to NJDEP's request
for RES to identify the concentraction of each of the hazardous consti-
tuents in the contaminant plume, RES developed a new analytical sampling
suite for interim status wells. RES contended that, although they felt
that they had adequately delineated the plume in accordance with the 1981
AGO, they would agree to "supplement this information."
At the time the response to the NOD was sent (May, 1986), RES was almost
finished with closure of its Basin Closure Area. RES reviewed what had
been done to date: closure of Category A (basins B-204, B-210, B-211, and
the arsenic vault), Category B (basins B-202E, B-202F), and Category C
(basins B-201, B-202A through D, B-202G, B-203). RES contended that all
waste was stabilized using pozzolanic material and raised 2 feet above
the maximum anticipated ground water elevation. A 60 mil polyethylene
liner was place over Category B and C basins. In May of 1986, RES was
-------
-27-
placing a final cover of top soil and seed; closure was completed by the
end of June, 1986. RES believes that closure of the L-series lagoons and
B-206 and B-207, along with operation of the ground water abatement system,
will "further enhance the improvement in ground water quality".
d. Situation at the Time of the Task Force Inspection
Presently, the biological treatment system (B-206, B-207) receives on-site
generated sanitary wastes and ground water captured by the on-site abate-
ment well system. After treatment this waste is fed into the L-series
lagoons and discharged to Raccoon Creek under a NJPDES Permit after
being combined with scrubber effluent in the cooling process. Closure
plans are currently being reviewed for both the L-series lagoons and
B-206 and B-207. Under Federal regulations these units cannot accept
any waste after November 8, 1988. RES has submitted plans for above
ground tanks to replace these units as well as plans to install storm
water retention basins.
In May, 1985, the State issued a draft modification to the existing
NJPDES discharge permit which included ground water monitoring. The
draft permit went through the public comment stage but has not been
sent to RES for final ization. There are some major differences between
the State's monitoring plan and that supplied by RES in their NOD
response. Currently, RES is following neither plan. The Facility is
conducting a ground water program pursuant to the November 1981 AGO
along with modifications made in 1983.
In November, 1985, RES added 8 wells to the monitoring system as to comply
with the LOIS requirements. Although RES has been in compliance with
the 1981 State ACO along with subsequent revisions, the facility has
still not adequately addressed the rate and extent of contamination at
the site pursuant to 40 CFR 265.93(d).
-------
-28-
2. Regional Setting
a. Physiography
New Jersey may be divided into four physiographic provinces: Valley
and Ridge, Appalachian Highlands, Piedmont, and the New Jersey
Coastal Plain. Rollins Environmental Services lies within the New
Jersey Coastal Plain, a province which encompasses 4,200 square
miles and extends from Raritan Bay to the northeast to Delaware Bay
to the southwest (Gill and Farlekas, 1984). It is bounded to the
east by the Atlantic Ocean and to the west by the Fall Line, a
geologic contact zone between the consolidated rocks of the Piedmont
and Highlands and the unconsolidated sediments of the Coastal Plain
(Figure 5). The New Jersey Coastal Plain is part of the larger
Atlantic Coastal Plain that extends from Florida to Newfoundland
and eastward to the edge of the Continental Shelf (Zapecza, 1984).
Another physiographic feature is the drainage divide (Figure 6).
Approximately 55% of the stream flow within the New Jersey Coastal
Plain drains in an easterly direction into Raritan Bay and the
Atlantic Ocean while 45% flows toward the Delaware River and Delaware
Bay (Vowinkel , ^t al., 1981). Rollins, which is only 2.5 miles
from the Delaware River, lies within the Delaware River Drainage
Basin.
b. Geologic Setting
The New Jersey Coastal Plain is underlain by a wedge of unconsolidated
sediments that thickens seaward, from a thin veneer at the Fall Line
and Delaware River to a thickness of over 6,000 feet at the tip of
Cape May County, New Jersey (Richards, Olmsted, and Ruhle, 1962)
(Figures 7 and 8). The bedrock surface of this wedge dips yently
to the southeast at 10 to 60 ft/mi.
Unconsolidated sediments of the Coastal Plain range in age from Cretaceous
to Holocene. For the most part, these sediments are composed of clay,
silt, sand, and gravel whose depositional environment ranges from
continental to marine-type. The initial deposition of these sediments
began during the Late Jurassic or Early Cretaceous during the early
stages of the formation of the Atlantic Ocean. Deposition was
directly influenced by basement highs and lows which formed as a
result of block-faulting during intial sea floor spreading. Basement
consists of gneiss and schists (Wissahickon Formation) of Precambrian
age. The contact between bedrock and the overlying unconsolidated
sediments is usually defined by a saprolite or weathered zone
(Zapecza, 1984).
-------
-29-
10 20 30MILE3
I I i
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
i—i—T—r •
0 10 20 90 KILOMETERS
I
Figure 5. New Jersey Coastal Plain and fall line. Fran Zapezca (1984)
-------
-30-
EXPLANATION
Major Streaia Divide
"" Drainage Divide
s .**- /
—\ f ^
4«• .„ \ <,
Figure 6. Drainage basins in the New Jersey Coastal Plain. From Volwinkel and
Foster (1981).
-------
-31-
Atlantic City
A'
level
EXPLANATION
Composite confining layer
and minor aquifer
rSf Confining layer
Not to scale
Figure 7. Generalized hydrogeologic cross-section showing dipping bedrock (pre-Cretaceous) and
unconsolidated sediments in the New Jersey Coastal Plain. From Walker (1983).
-------
-32-
T4»OO'
Q#* S
'' f
Altitadt of mil
Valnn muulMi to numt S f«*t.
r* I
z. (/
,'-' } .'-' J.<*&
fm- I ^——--
I -x '
,
I ' f
'
G«n»r*llied atrarturc contour on vn-
Crttacmui bedrock tortice. Altitude in
feet: datunt » mnn M* 1'vei. contour
f«t.
Mwine »nd
(4) Kumu*Mn. Sl*ojtht*r. Hulme.
« ; / / / >
JO'
VH/I #
Figure 8
Generalized structure contour (altitude in feet; datum is rnean sea level)
" oT^e-Setaceous bedrock surface in the New Jersey Coastal Plaxn.
Fran Parker et al. (1964).
-------
-33-
the oldest group of sediments deposited on the Precambrian Wissahickon
Formation consists of Cretaceous continental deposits of the Potomac
Group. This unit consists of alternating clay, silt, sand, and gravel
and is a major part of the thick sedimentary wedge in extreme southern
New Jersey. The overlying Raritan Formation consists of continental-
deltaic deposits which are 1ithologically similar to the underlying
Potomac Group sediments. At depth, however, these sediments contain
glauconite and fossils which suggests a none-marine influence. The
Magothy Formation unconformably overlies the Raritan Formation and can
be described as a transgressive sequence. It consists primarily of
beach sands and other associated near-shore marine sediments (Parker et
al. 1964). These three, generally non-marine units, make up approximately
half the total thickness of coastal plain deposits in New Jersey.
Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary sediments overlying the Magothy Formation
were deposited in beach to outer shelf environments caused by alternating
transgressive and regressive seas (Owen and Sohl, 1969). Glauconite in
association with fine-grained sediments are generally recognized as being
indicative of an outer shelf environment. Coarsening-upward sequences,
often overlying glauconite rich units, are indicative of transgressive
deposits which formed during major incursions by the sea. This mostly
marine strata of Late Cretaceous and Early Tertiary age (pre-Miocene)
ranges in thickness from about 400 feet near outcrop locations to more
than 1,000 feet near the New Jersey shore (Richards et al., 1962).
The long period of marine incursion ended with the deposition of the
Cohansey Sand, a non-marine deltaic unit (see Figure 9 for a generalized
description of deltaic and shelf transgressive and regressive sequences).
Continental deposition continued through Late Tertiary and Quaternary
times with recorded thicknesses of up to 1,000 feet in southeastern New
Jersey. Many of the later units (Beacon Hill, Bridgeton, Pensauken, and
Cape May Formation) are primarily comprised of fluvial sands and gravels.
A series of complex Quaternary deposits form a thin veneer over the older
sediments and are generally less than 50 feet thick. Holocene age deposits
of alluvium are present along the flood plain of the Delaware River and
its tributaries. Pleistocene deposits of possible glacial origin (glacial
outwash streams and channels) as well as fluvial/marine deposits extend
beneath the Delaware River (see Figure 10 for a description of geologic
and hydrogeologic units in the New Jersey Coastal Plain).
c. Hydrogeologic Setting
The sediment wedge of the New Jersey Coastal Plain comprises one interra-
lated aquifer system that includes several aquifers and confining units.
The boundaries of aquifers and confining beds may not necessarily corres-
pond to geologic formations because formations may be divided into several
hydrologic units and may change in physical character laterally (which
affects their hydrologic characteristics). There are five major aquifers
in the New Jersey Coastal Plain: Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system,
-------
-34-
(a)
I
*
OUt|«
MNC*
MfMSNOftt
GUI'
•«»CN
SlM*OUCOUS
«,.«.«
f
V ' ^ *
A 1 1
' ' 1 ' f-r
1 *
'
* 1 ' *
1 .
CTCU MO |
'"
II !J!
V j
lii!
ill fl
I
(b)
CIPlAltTION
C
0 B«cl<—
C TopMt d«n»
Hewn l»u"' S*«
— ttwittfl Formaiiefi
i— Hindu w* M« CoMOMT S«M
C NMnkmiu* — Mount Uu* md R«d Bw* S««* m< Vmc
MiMMywi •< HKtanod formBKxn
H lnn«f Ihttt — MtfttwtNiItt formilion Woodbunf C%.
Fotnulnm
I. Ouwmwll — MmlwiMlt MmluMoM. Itoniiiit t
md Horntfllovn S*«<4 Idd M*nn«y«A Fomwtion
J OMitMiklWixilInn — RI>I<«I •"< NifMtit
Figure 9. Both (a) and (b) are diagranmatic representations of depositional
environments which existed during the emplacement of Cretaceous and
younger sediments in the New Jersey Coastal Plain. From Owens and
Sohl (1969).
-------
-35-
SYSTEM
Quaternary
Tertiary
Cretaceous
i
SERIES
Holocene
Plelstocen
Miocene
Eocene
Paleocene
Upper
Cretaceous
.over
Cretaceous
Pre- Cretaceoua
GEOLOGIC
ONIT
Alluvial
deposits
Beach tend
Cape May
Formation
Pensauken
Formation
Brldgeton
Formation
Beacon Rill
Gravel
Cohansey Sand
Klrkvood
Form* t Ion
Plney Point
Formation
Sbark Klver
Formation
Msnaaquan
Formation
Vincentovn
Formation
Horneratovn
Sand
Tlnton Sand
tad Bank Sand
Naveaink
Formation
Sand
Wenonah
Marahalltovn
Fonucinn
Engllahtovn
Formation
Boodburv Clav
Merchantvllla
Formation
Magothy
Formation
tar It an
Formation
Potomac
Group
Bedrock
LITHOLOCY
Sand, lilt, and black mud.
Sand, quartz, light-colored, medium- to
Sand, quarts, light-colored, heterogeneous,
clayey, pebbly.
Gravel, quarts, light colored, sandy.
Sand, quarts, light-colored, medium to
coarse-grained, pebbly; local clay beds.
Sand, quarts, gray and tan, Tery fine* to
medium-grained, micaceous, and dark-
colored diatomaceous clay.
Sand, quarts and glauconite, fine- to
coarse-grained .
Clay, lilty and sandy, glauconltlc, green,
gray and Brown, flned-grained quarts send.
Sand, quarts, gray and green, fine- to coarse-
grained, glauconltlc, and brovn clayey, very
fossillf erous. glauconite and quarts
~.1~.r-n4 r.
Sand, clayey, glauconltlc, dark green, fine-
to coarse-grelned .
Sand, quarts, and glauconite, brovn and gray,
fine- to coarse-grained, clayey, micaceous.
'Sand, clayey, silty, glauconltlc, green and
coarse-grained, slightly glauconltlc.
Sand, very fine- to fine-grained, gray and
Clay, silty, dark greenish gray,
elsuconltlc auartz sand.
Sand, quarts, tan and gray, fine- to medium-
grained; local cley beds
Clay, grey and black, micaceous silt.
black; locally very fine-grained quarts
and glauconltlc sand.
Sand, quarts, light-gray, fine- to coarse-
grained; local beds of dark-gray llgnltlc clay.
Sand, quarts, light-gray, fine- to coarse-
grained, pebbly, arkoslc. red, white and
variegated clay.
Alternating clay, silt, aand, and gravel.
Precambrlan and lover Paleozoic crystalline
rocks, metamorphlc achlat and gneiss; locally
Triaaalc basalt, sandstone and shale.
HYDROGSOLOC1C
UNIT
Undlfferen-
Kirkvood-
Cohansey
aquifer
system
confining bed
• _____...
i^o^Crande^ w_-_bz
confining bed
Atlantic City
BOO -foot san
Plney Poin
aquifer
•8
JB
ft
£ Vincentovn
*£ aquifer
o
u
V
Al
i__ - 1-
Jl Red Bank
1 land
WcnonAh-
Hount Laurel
aquifer
Wenonah
confining bed
Engl ishtown
aquifer
system
Merchantville-
foodbury
confining bed
upper
g t aquifer
•J "3 conf bd
* « * middle
jj*;. aquifer
5 SJ, * conf bd
** lover
aquifer
Bedrock
confining bed
HYDROLOCIC CHARACTERISTICS
Surficial material, often
hydraulically connected to
underlying aquifers. Locally
of yielding large quantities of
water.
A major aquifer system.
Cround-vater occurs generally
under water-table conditions.
In Cape May County the
Cohansey Sand is under
artesian conditions.
along coast and for a short
distance Inland. A thin water-
> bearing sand occurs vlthln the
middle of this unit.
A major aquifer along the coast.
Allowsy Clsy member or equivalent
Yields moderate quantities of
water locally.
Poorly permeable aedlments.
Yields small to moderate
quantities of vater in and
near its outcrop area.
Poorly permeable aediaents.
Yields small quantities of vater
in and near Its outcrop area.
Poorly permeable sediments.
A major aquifer.
A leaky confining bed.
A major aquifer. Two sand unit*
in Honmouth and Ocean Counties
A major confining be>d. Locally
the Merchanmlle Pm. may
contain a thin water-bearing
aand.
A major aquifer system. In the
northern Coastal Plain the upper
Old Bridge aquifer and the middle
aquifer is the equivalent of the
Farrlngton aquifer. In the Dele.
River Valley three aquifers are
recognized. In the deeper sub-
surface, units below the upper
aquifer are undifferentiated.
No wells obtain water from
these consolidated rocks,
except along Fall Line.
tlo Grande water-bearing son*.
------ Minor aquifer not mapped in this
Figure 10. Geologic and hydrogeologic units of the New Jersey Coastal Plain.
Fran Zapezca (1984).
-------
-36-
Englishtown aquifer, Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer, Lower "800-foot" Sand
aquifer of the Kirkwood Formation and the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer
(Vowinkel and Foster, 1981).
In New Jersey, sediments of the Cretaceous Potamac Group, Raritan, and
Magothy Formations are usually described as one aquifer unit or as an
aquifer system (Zapecza, 1984) because the individual formations are
1ithologically indistinguishable from one another over large areas of the
southern Coastal Plain (see Figure 11 for a description of extent, thick-
ness, and subsurface configuration). In the region between Trenton and
Delaware Bay, the aquifer system can be divided into five units: three
aquifers, designated lower, middle, and upper, and two confining beds.
In the study area, which lies in Gloucester County, however, these sub-
divisions are not apparent.
The important aquifer systems in Gloucester County are the Potomac Group
and Raritan-Magothy Formations (Cretaceous), the Wenonah Formation and the
Mount Laurel Sand (Cretaceous), Vincentown Formation (Tertiary), Cohansey
Sand (Tertiary) and the Cape May Formation (Quaternary). Of the water
bearing formations, the Potomac Group and the Raritan and Magothy Forma-
tions contain the most productive aquifers in Gloucester County. The
system yielded over 25 million gallons per day in 1978 in Gloucester County
(Volwinkel and Foster, 1981). Regional aquifer tests indicate transmis-
sivities upwards of 30,000 gpd/ft and storage coeffecients ranging from
.000033 to .004 (Meisler in Gill et_ al., 1976). This aquifer system,
which crops out in a narrow 3 to 5 mTTe wide band adjacent to the Delaware
River in southwestern Jersey (Figure 11), is the most heavily pumped system
in New Jersey.
The geohydrology is more complex within the outcrop area (western Gloucester
County) than downdip of it (Fusillo et_ aj_., 1984). In the outcrop area,
confining units are thinner; thus, hydraulic connections between aquifers
is more likely. Numerous lenses of sand and clay occur locally. In much
of the outcrop area, the Cretaceous aquifer system is overlain by a thin
veneer of post-Cretaceous deposits, most of which are hydraulically
connected to the underlying aquifer. The aquifers in Gloucester County
are recharged by precipitation entering the uppermost aquifer through
outcrops and overlying permeable units. Ground water is generally dis-
charged to streams and wells, leakage to other aquifers, and evapotran-
spiration.
Precipitation, the source of all freshwater inflow to the Coastal Plain,
averages 44 inches per year in Gloucester County. A large percentage of
streamflow runoff is derived from ground water discharge into stream
channels. The upper geologic units are able to transmit large quantities
of water downward to the saturated zone. In the outcrop areas of the
Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system where the system is unconfined,
the recharge to ground water is 12 inches per year (Farlekas, 1979).
Variations in recharge are a result of the slope of the land surface,
permeability of the sediments, and the degree of urbanization.
-------
-37-
TfOO'
TS'OO'
T4»00'
*7^?//*&&
X«*V /^ / / / s /. '"
"/,/// *-<*°y*-l
/*. / / f / /I •**
xV / ^.-^r*
^x^^.^-x / •
Vxx5"/ !
X-1^ ^-isw j
KCPI^NATION
O -080
Wdl
Weil nb»vnt.
fwrt. Datum tt ascui w* ivvvj. VnJuuH roundvd
to iwmmK ^ f*«t.
Genemittrd atnjcturv eontnur. on top nf Mncnttiy fnr-
muian vxecpt for HI dfflnv«t urcms, whcr« th* Mnirathy
ix believM to be «b«%nt *nd tiw contmir* urc nn t^>it
of :h* Kcriuin Fam»tinn. Altitud* in fcvt; datum in
mean m level, contour intervfti 100 fi-rt.
30'
WOO
2000
GenenUUed iioiweh
Itopnelw obCaiiMd by intiraoUtion from contour* nn top
of prv-Cr*t«eeou* roekc and eontour* an tnp of
Mavothy or Bjuritan fornumon. interval, iOO fwt.
Outcrop
Includ« outcrop of Rjlritan ind Mmjrothy FormiKinnn in
Ne* Jrntr and Delaware, and «tu Patuxent and
Pt£ap*eo formation* in Delaware. In pfacv*. concealed
by Quaternary depoutt.
-SO'
Figure 11, Generalized structure contour (altitude in feet; datum is mean sea level)
on top of the Magothy formation along with isopachs of the combined
Potomac Group, Raritan and Magothy formations. From Parker et al. (1964)
-------
-38-
Ground water withdraw!s by man have modi fed the natural hydro!ogic cycle
in the Coastal Plain by increasing the rate of outflow from the system to
the ocean. Induced recharge and salt encroachment are a result of the
changes in flow direction. Ground water withdrawls from the Potomac-
Raritan-Magothy aquifer system have almost doubled from 45 billion per
year in 1956 to close to 90 billion gallons per year in 1978 (Figure 12).
This has resulted in ground water level declines of 1.5 to 2.5 ft/yr from
1966 to 1976 (Luzier 1980). Chloride concentrations, a function of
saltwater encroachment from extensive ground water withdrawls as well as
contamination from vertical leakage, has leveled off in recent years.
Chloride concentrations in western Gloucester County range from 0.4 to
177 mg/1 in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system (Schaefer, 1983).
-------
-39-
160
c
<
>! 120
0
z
o
I! 90
z
o
2 6°
0
.1
<
K
Q
X
30
\
410
328
246
164
82
a
tu
0.
CO
z
o
z
o
z
o
oc
o
1980
EXPLANATION
Total
Aquifer
O = Potonac-Raritan-Magothy System
A = Englishtown
EJ3 = Wenonah-Mount Laurel
Q = Lower "800-foot" Sand of the Kirkwood Formation
f = Kirkwood-Cohansey
Figure 12. Major ground water withdrawls from the New Jersey Coastal Plain,
1958-1978. Fran Volwinkel and Foster (1981).
-------
-40-
3. Site Hydrogeology
Much of the information in this and the next chapter has been derived
from information provided by RES' consultants, Geraghty and Miller,
Inc., to EPA and NJDEP. These submittals include yearly ground water
monitoring reports, pump test reports, drilling project reports, etc.
Another important document used for this report is the Environmental
Assessment of the Rollins Environmental Services (RES) NJ Hazardous
Waste Management Facility, Logan Township, New Jersey prepared by
NJDEP in October of 1983. These submittals along with miscellaneous
inspection and sampling reports form the basis of the site specific
portions of this report. This section and the next section, "Ground
Water Quality", are summaries of these submittals and are not critiques
of their quality. A critical analysis of the available information
will be provided in the "Dicussion" section (Section 5).
a. General Overview - Geology
RES is located along the eastern banks of Raccoon Creek in northwestern
Gloucester County, New Jersey (see Figure 2). Raccoon Creek dis-
charges into the Delaware River approximately 2.2 miles northwest
of the facility. The northeastern portion of the facility is 10 to
20 feet above sea level. The central portion is characterized by
the southward sloping terrace which is underlain by sandy clay and
sand. To north and south lie marshlands which consist primarily of
organic silts, muck, and peat.
The stratigraphy at the RES site is complex (Figure 13). Basement rock
is the Wissahickon Formation. Above the Wissahickon Formation lies
an unconsolidated group of sediments ranging in age from Early
Cretaceous to Recent. The expected depth to the Wissahickon Forma-
tion is approximately 250 feet below sea level at the site (NJ
Geol. Survey Rep. 4); the contact between it and the overlying
unconsolidated sediments is believed to be a weathered mica schist
(saprolite). A regressional period during the Jurassic probably
caused erosion of the Wissahickon surface and its redeposition as a
veneer of disaggregated material up to 30 feet thick. This veneer
of sediments is encountered in wells drilled through Coastal Plain
material into the Wissahickon Formation. Highland areas to the north
and east were the provenance for sediments deposited during the
Cretaceous and Quaternary Periods. The Raritan Formation in the
vicinity of RES is characterized by light colored sands and silty
clay thought to represent river channel and floodplain depositional
environments of the Cretaceous Period. As will be is discussed
later, there is no strong evidence to suggest the existance of any
continuous clay layers beneath the site area. While clay does
exist, thicknesses and elevations are not consistent among well
logs. It is not certain whether the Cape May Formation, often
indistinguishable from the underlying Raritan Formation, is present
at the RES site. Cape May sands and clays are washed or wind blow
sediment of non-glacial origin which are usually found on low
terraces and plains.
-------
-41-
(a)
(b)
fCAtC - Ii3«00
(I Inch-300 ft.)
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION-ROLL INS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
R O
tmt
n
?o
to
O
•O
-I-JO
Dlfi of MdlBtst mitt vtthln thlf tattt «r«« rcfttct
leeit vitUklltty of itdlxnc coBpoaltlo* ratkir than
the *«*rall louthciitwird dlf chiracttriftle of tht
Htv Jtrtiy Ceiitit riain for«*tlont.
Figure 13. Site specific geology and gecmorphology at RES. Fran NJDEP (1983)
-------
-42-
Recent deposits are related to the flooding of Raccoon Creek Valley
during the post-glacial rise in sea level. These sediments can be sub-
divided into a basal sand, an intermediate clayey sand, and overlying
silts and muck. These differences are a result of depositional environ-
ment, the coarser material being deposited in stream channels or along
estuary shorelines and the finer silts being deposited offshore in quieter
water. Organic silts, mucks, and peats were deposited in adjacent marsh
areas, all of these recent sediments slope towards Raccoon Creek.
b. General Overview - Hydrogeology
The Cretaceous through Quaternary age deposits have been divided into
three waterbearing zones at the RES site: the water table zone, the
shallow artesian zone, and the deep artesian zone. Because of the deep
artesian zone's naturally poor water quality it will not be discussed
further. The water table zone is an unconfined aquifer which is recharged
by precipitation through the overlying Recent sediments. Topographic
low areas such as streams and marshes are ground water discharge points.
The top of the water table average 1 to 3 feet above sea level ; the zone
is generally 25 to 30 feet thick and, locally, 45 to 50 feet thick.
Differences in thickness are a function of the irregular occurrence of
clay layers and lenses and differences in topography. The zone is
generally thicker in the North Marsh Area.
The shallow arstesian zone is a deeper aquifer at the RES site. It is
semi-confined since a continuous clay confining unit does not exist
immediately above the unit throughout the site. The shallow artesian
system is recharged by vertical leakage from the water table zone.
Minor contamination in the shallow artesian zone is further evidence
that the water table zone directly recharges this zone. The downward
component of flow may be reversed locally with heavy pumpage in the
water table zone. The shallow artesian zone discharges to Raccoon
Creek. Because of the variable vertical and horizontal extent of clay
layers and lenses, the top of the shallow artesian zone is difficult
to determine. According to RES' consultants, the top of the zone lies
68 to 73 feet below sea level. Its thickness, as determined from one log
of an abandoned production well, is approximately 53 feet.
RES performed short-term well tests in 1982 on both abatement and artesian
zone wells. The range of calculated transmissivities in the water table
zone is 3,000 gpd/ft to 27,000 gpd/ft with corresponding hydraulic con-
ductivities of 150 gpd/ft2 to 625 gpd/ft2. The higher conductivities
and transmissivities are for ground water in the North Marsh Area where
the sandy units are generally coarser and thicker. In a long-term well
test on shallow artesian well DP4 it was determined that there is some
interconnection between the water table zone and the shallow artesian
zone. The calculated hydraulic conductivity in the shallow artesian zone
-------
-43-
is 1,700 gpd/ft2 while, based on an aquifer thickness of 53 feet, the
transmissivity of the zone is 90,000 gpd/ft. Because of the complex
geology, it is difficult to correlate these local saturated zones to
regional hydrogeologic formations. The shallow artesian zone may correlate
to the upper reaches of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy system while the
water table zone is probably equivalent to the later Quaternary desposits.
It should be emphasized that geologic and hydrogeologic information
regarding the shallow artesian zone comes from only 5 deep wells. Its
thickness, which is used to determine the zone's transmissivity, derived
from the drill log of one out of service production well.
The following section contains a much more detailed discussion of site
hydrogeology. It is essentially a synopsis of 15 years of ground water
investigations by RES' consultants, NJDEP, and EPA. The focus will be on
specific work done at the site and how it has affected our understanding
of the area. It will also describe the scientific basis from which many
of these findings were derived. A more critical approach to the same topic
will the main concern of the "Discussion" section (Section 5).
c. Hydrogeology and RES' Ground Water Monitoring Program
In February, 1970, RES (then known as Rollins-Purle, Inc.) drilled a deep
production well and several shallow observation wells. The production
well was 290 feet deep and drill logs describe bedrock at 270 feet. To
this day, the production well (now sealed) is the only well to have
penetrated the whole unconsol idated sedimentary sequence and the underlying
Wissahickon Formation. In February, 1972, RES contracted Geraghty and
Miller, Inc. (G & M) to study the ground water conditions at the facility.
G & M submitted a report in April , 1972, describing ground water conditions
and hydrogeology. As part of this project wells were installed at 18
locations (designated A through Q), and at each location, one or more such
wells were screened at depths ranging from 5 to 30 feet. Using the
results of this testing program and using well logs from previous production
and observation wells, G & M concluded that "the western portion of the
facility consists of predominantly clay grading to sand to the east and
that shallow sands are underlain by a more or less continuous clay
zone." Most sediments were generally of low permeability.
Water level measurements in the shallow wells show lateral movement of
ground water from the vicinity of Well C, northwest, toward Raccoon Creek
and the North Marsh Area (Figure 14a). These levels are significant in
that there are true static water levels since no abatement wells were
yet in place and the production well was not yet in operation to affect
measurements. There is already evidence of some mounding near Well C
which may have been due to activities at the "organic filter pad", now
part of the Basin Closure Area. Using the ground water elevation data
from various well points, G & M calculated a hydraulic gradient of
0.0025.
-------
-44-
(a)
(b)
• I Mkll location
— . — Active rtdllty Bcundny
7 — Hater Table Oxitours - March 1972
in feet
Rollins Environmental Services Facility Map - 1972
Hell Location
Active Facility Boundary
Water Table Contours - Ncv 1975
in feet
Rollins Environmental S^rvirfs Fncility Mnp - 19HO
Figure 14. Water table contour maps (altitude in feet; datum is mean sea level)
3 /i» \ T>T_-_-. j _.^T .. .-L-
-------
-45-
After assuming a low permeability of 100 gpd/ft^ (hydraulic conductivity)
and a 10 foot upper aquifer thickness (now called the "water table zone"),
G & M calculated the discharge to Raccoon Creek to be approximately 5,000
gpd. Because wells were screened at different elevations (at the same
location), vertical gradients could be estimated. G & M concluded that
"there is some order of downward component of flow." As a result of the
initial evaluation, 6 abatement wells (Wells 20 through 25) were installed
to form a barrier against the movement of contaminated ground water
towards Raccoon Creek. The implementation program called for each abate-
ment well to be pumped for 12 hours per day at a rate of 20 gpm to yield
14,400 gpd. According to G & M, this rate would be well over the estimated
ground water discharge (5,000 gpd) into Raccoon Creek.
In October, 1975, DPI and DP2 were installed to monitor the shallow arte-
sian zone. A short-term well test was conducted on each abatement well
to determine whether clogging had occurred within the well screens. As a
result, redevelopment was initiated; however, well efficiency did not
improve sufficiently. Static water level measurements were taken which
more clearly delineated a ground water mound centered beneath basins
B-202A and B-201 (Figure 14b). During this study G & M recommended that
4 more wells be added to the abatement system. They were installed in
April-May, 1976, and designated 20A, 20B, 26 and 27; thus, the number of
wells in the abatement system increased to 9. Concurrently, the pumping
rate was increased to 22,000 gpd. Ground water pumped by the abatement
wells was discharged into a common collection system and then piped into
the equalization basin B-206 for biological treatment. All 9 wells are 4"
diameter with 10 feet of screen installed in the water table zone. They
were drilled 20 to 25 feet from ground surface corresponding to 15 to 20
feet below sea level. These newer wells were constructed of PVC; the
first 5 wells, however, were constructed of fiberglass. Composition of
the original well points is uncertain as many of the logs no longer exist
and many of the wells have been pulled out of the ground.
Also part of this project was the installation of 6 monitoring wells
(R-W). A well test was conducted, utilizing the Main Production Well for
pumping and using DPI, DP2, and 17 as observation wells. The purpose of
the test was to determine the transmissivity of the shallow artesian
zone. The pump test lasted 100 minutes during which time the Main
Production Well was pumped at a constant rate of 190 gpm. Drawdown at
DP2, 14 feet from the Main Production Well, was 5 feet; drawdown at DPI,
950 feet away, was 0.06 feet; there was no measured drawdown in Well 17
which is 500 feet away and screened in the water table zone. From these
results G & M calculated the transmissivity of the shallow artesian zone
to be 16,000 gpd/ft. Continuous water level recorders were installed in
DPI, DP2, and Well 17 to determine the hydraulic gradient between the
water table and shallow artesian zone. This was done over the period
January 29 to Febuary 5, 1976, prior to the well test. Tidal effects
were evident (1 to 2 feet) in Wells DPI and DP2; these effects were
negligible in Well 17. Due to maintenance problems, the pumping/abatement
-------
-46-
system was not in operation during early 1978; therefore, the March, 1978,
water table map represents approximate natural flow conditions. Mounding
is apparent near basins B-210, B-211, and B-212.
In order to determine ground water flow direction in the shallow artesian
zone, RES installed a third deep well (DPS) in 1979. From the three deep
wells it was determined that ground water flow in this zone is towards
the west, to Raccoon Creek. The screened interval of DPS is shallower
(531- 63' bsl) than the previously installed wells, DPI and DP2 (75'- 85'
and 72'- 82' bsl respectively). Because of contamination in the northern
section of the facility, two more abatement wells (28 and 29) were also
installed, increasing the total number of abatement wells to 11.
In the summer of 1981, as part of an investigation into possible contami-
nation in the North Marsh Area, RES installed 11 well clusters (3 wells -
shallow, intermediate, and deep, in 11 locations). The wells are 1.25 to
1.50 inches in diameter and constructed of PVC. Well screens are 5 to 10
feet in length and are all located in sandy units at depths between 2 and
67 feet below sea level. The following summer (1982) water level measure-
ments from the marsh wells (called the MA series) were used along with
measurements from older wells in the Basin Closure Area to construct a
hydrogeologic cross-section. RES' consultants determined that there is a
downward component of ground water flow beneath the Basin Closure Area
and an upward component in the North Marsh Area (Figure 15).
RES' ground water monitoring system changed significantly in late 1981,
when, as part of a Consent Agreement signed with NJDEP, RES was required
to more adequately define site hydrogeology and to upgrade the existing
abatement system. Pursuant to the Order, RES conducted a shallow artesian
well test and a series of short term well tests on all abatement wells.
The purpose of the shallow artesian well test was to determine the trans-
missivity and storage coefficient of the shallow artesian zone, the
leakage rate of any overlying confining unit, and the probable effect of
pumping the shallow artesian zone on the water table aquifer. A new well,
DP4, was installed as the pumping well. Observation wells included AVI,
AV2, W7, Wll, W12, W18, U, DD, BB, II, EE, R, 11, DPI, DP2, DPS, and DP5,
(another new well). DP4 was pumped at constant rate (300 gpm) for 29.5
hours. Stevens automatic water level recorders were used at all the deep
wells. All data was presented on semi-log paper, and results from DPS
were used to calculate aquifer parameters. DPS was chosen because it is
minimally influenced by tides. Unfortunately, DPS is not in the RES waste
management area. Quantitative results were determined by curve matching
DPS data to leaky artesian type curves of Walton, 1970. The transmissivity
of the shallow artesian zone was determined to be 90,000 gpd/ft with a
storage coefficient of 4.6x10"^, and leakage from the confining unit was
determined to be 9.7x10-3 gpd. The horizontal permeability of the shallow
artesian zone was 1,700 gpd/ft?, and the vertical permeability of the
confining unit, 0.068 gpd/ft2; permeability data was determined using an
-------
-47-
a
e .»
SS9
- 10
-to
-10
-40
-io
-to
EXPL ANATION
b;;^;:l ORGANICS
[_ J S»NO trim TO MEDIUM)
WELL CLUSTER
^ll•n >
M«M .
•tig .
Nolt-: Fhis section is nut corircted for dnlsolrophy. As the vrrtital
peimeablllty of the unconsolIdiltd depot its Is significantly less
lhan the horizontal permeability, th« vertical flow component
shown in the section is exaggerated.
HOLLO*
INTCMMOIATI
— ri
..' V| SAND (MEDIUM
•?) 0*»VEL
: — -|
-V'[ CL»t
• • 1
•1 IILT
TO COARSE 1
ft
SCREEN /
INTERVALS 4-4
DIRECTION Of OROUNOWATER \ ,
FLOW PARALLEL TO PLANE OF \ (
SECTION \J
H
» DIRECTION Of OMOUNOwATIR I
FLOW OBLIQUE TO (OUT OFI
IO9-
1 25-
1 27—
PLANE OF SECTION
is-—"""
- SEPTEMBER 7. IM2 WATER-LEVEL
ELEVATIONS, IN FEET RELATIVE TO
MEAN SEA LEVEL
LINE OF EOUAL WATER-TABLE ELEVATION
IN FEET RELATIVE TO MEAN SEA LEVEL
(DASHED WHERE INFERRED)
Hydrogeologic Cross-section from
Geraghty and Miller, Dec., 1982
Figure 15
-------
-48-
quifer thickness of 53 feet and a confining unit thickness of 7 feet.
An analysis of this data will be included in the "Discussion" section
(Section 5). The rest of the test results were used for qualitative
purposes only. Pumping of shallow artesian well DP4 caused a drawdown in
water table wells AVI, EE, W12, II and 11. Based upon these results, RES
concluded that there is a hydraulic connection between the two aquifer
zones. The amount of drawdown was variable, probably due to the hetero-
geneity of subsurface geology. Some water table wells actually showed a
rise in water levels during pumping. This could not be accounted for.
Most of the shallow wells used for this well test were sealed during the
closure of the basins in the northern portion of the facility. Of the 13
water table zone wells, only 6 (DD, GG, R, U, II, and W18) remain.
Also as part of the Order with NJDEP, RES was required to re-evaluate the
contamination abatement program. In August, 1982, G & M submitted the
project report, Abatement Well Testing Program and Design erf Pumping
Schedule. The specific purpose of the program was to "determine pumping
rates required to alter the ground water flow system sufficiently to
create a pumping barrier to the flow of contaminated ground water off the
property and to establish an operational pumping schedule for RES' subse-
quent use." Abatement wells 20 through 25 were tested as were new wells
30 through 33. The general approach was to pump one well for 6 hours,
after which a second well would be turned on. The first well would
continue to be pumped for 6 more hours (12 hours total). It would then
shut down and a third well started. This alternating procedure would
continue through the entire test. Positive displacement pumps were used
for testing the old abatement wells (20 series), while submersible pumps
were used in the new 30 series wells.
The purpose of using this alternating sequence for the pump tests was to
determine the mutual drawdown produced by each well pair midway between
them and the discharge rates required to obtain these drawdowns. Drawdown
values were plotted for individual wells against time, and drawdowns for
several wells were plotted against distance (the values for drawdown vs.
distance were taken after 12 hours of pumping). Distance-drawdown graphs
were used to determine the storage coefficient and transmissivity of the
zone being pumped. By checking the amount of pumpage needed in the field
to produce the required drawdown against those results from an equation
from Todd (1959) describing drawdown adequacy between two wells, maximum
required discharge rates were determined. Field data was used in Todd's
formula; hydraulic conductivity values were derived from transmissivities.
Through this process, the minimum drawdowns required to keep contaminants
from migrating off-site were determined. These results, along with field
derived hydraulic gradients, formed the basis for a revised pumping
schedule. Based on the results, 2 more abatement wells were drilled (34
and 35), and total daily pumpage increased to approximately 140,000 gpd.
Transmissivities ranged from 13,000 gpd/ft to 27,000 gpd/ft in the North
Marsh Area (where the new 30 series wells are located) to 3,000gpd/ft to
8,200 gpd/ft in the Central Plant Area (where the older 20 series wells
-------
-49-
are located). RES determined that water table zone thickness in the North
Marsh Area is 30 to 40 feet and decreases in the Central Plant Area to 15
to 25 feet. A more detailed discussion of test methods, interpretations,
and underlying assumptions, will be presented in Section 5.
The pumping schedule originally designed and implemented through the 1982
Abatement Well Report is the one currently being used. Approximately 4
million gallons of contaminated ground water per month are pumped into the
RES water treatment facility and, from there, discharged into Raccoon Creek
under a NJPDES Permit.
In June, 1985, RES installed 8 wells around the RCRA regulated units,
basins B-206 and B-207, to satisfy Interim Status ground water monitoring
requirements. Two wells (LI and L2) were installed in June, 1986, to
monitor the south side of the L series lagoons. These wells were all in-
stalled with PVC, are 4 inches in diameter, and are screened in the water
table zone (between 0' and 20' below sea level). Drill logs indicate
that the area is underlain by coarse to fine sand with some silt and clay
lenses.
-------
-50-
4. Ground Hater Quality
a. General Overview
Soon after RES began operations in 1969, ground water contamination
beneath the facility became evident. By the end of 1972, RES had
installed 25 wells in the water table zone. Six of these wells
were part of a pumping well system whose purpose was to intercept,
pump, and decontaminate the ground water. Since October 1971, when
the State first ordered RES to commence ground water decontamination
activities, efforts have been made to monitor and control the
extent of ground water contamination at the site. Early in the
history of site investigations, RES determined that total dissolved
solids (IDS) was a good indicator of ground water quality. Historically,
RES has used IDS values below 500 mg/1 to define background levels
and values above 500 mg/1 to represent contaminated ground water.
Through the years, RES has used IDS along with several parameters
(e.g. TOX, TOC) and specific inorganic constituents (e.g. Fe, Cd,
Cr) to define the boundaries of ground water contamination.
In early 1982, a substantial amount of organic contamination was found
as a result of a comprehensive waste characterization study. This
was the first study in which specific organic contaminants were
analyzed rather than broad parameters such as total organic carbon
(TOC) and total halogenated carbon (TOX). These parameters continued
to be used in ground water investigations, however, since RES con-
tended that wells contaminated with specific organic constituents
were all within the plume defined by the organic parameters and the
500 mg/1 TDS boundary. Trace organic contamination was found
during an investigation in 1984 and confirmed again in 1985 and
1986 in Well DP5 which penatrates the shallow artesian zone. Deep
wells within the water table zone also show organic as well as inorganic
contamination.
Background ground water quality data has been collected mostly from
public water supply wells in the area as well as from the now sealed
Main Production Well at the facility (Figure 6). Data from these
these wells supports the conclusion that ground water in the water
table zone and shallow artesian zone has been affected by activity
at the RES site. The range of TDS in uncontaminated ground water
from the Upper Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer range from 30-200ppm
(Parker et al., 1964) while chloride concentrations in the lower
reaches o7 TKe aquifer system (200-270 feet below sea level at the
RES site) range from 250 mg/1 to 27,000 mg/1 (Walker, 1983). The
lower reaches of the system are known to be slightly brackish in
nature and the zone is not used for drinking water purposes.
b. Ground Water Quality and The RES Ground Water Monitoring Program
Background ground water quality in the area surrounding the RES site is
good. Several drinking water supply and production wells in the region
-------
—Minimum, median, and maximum values of physical characteristics and
chemical constituents.
[Concentrations in milligrams per liter of dissolved constituent
except as noted.]
Number
of
Parameter samples Minimum Median Maximum
Temperature (*C) 860 8.9 11-5 24.0
Specific Conductance, field (umhos) 668 39 350 5,820
Specific Conductance, lab (umhos) 1,600 32 307 6,000
pH, field (units) 452 3-9 6.7 8-9
pH, lab (units) 744 2.8 6.9 9-4
Alkalinity, field (as CaCO,) 421 0 75 1,580
Alkalinity, lab (as CaCO,) 382 0 54 315
Dissolved oxygen 137 0 0.3 10.4
Hardness (as CaCO,) 1,004 0 55 570
Hardness, noncarbonate (as CaCO,) 990 0 2 569
Sodium 951 1.4 12 1,000
Potassium 940 .1 4.1 100
Calcium 971 .1 15 160
Magnesium 967 .1 4.4 100
Sulfate 1,034 0 17 1,700
Chloride 2,359 .6 20 1,900
Fluoride 685 0 0.1 6.2
Silica 965 0 9.1 53
Nitrate nitrogen (as N) 365 0 0.18 18
Nitrate nitrogen (as NO,) 575 0 0.6 198
Amnonia nitrogen (as N) 14? <.01 0.25 25
Ammonia nitrogen (as NH.) 146 .01 0.32 32
ftmonia and organic nitrogen (as N) 147 <.1 0.5 28
Nitrate and nitrite nitrogen (as N) 39" 0 0.1 18
Orthophosphate phosphorus (as P) 516 0 0.06 3-2
Iron, total (ug/L) 523 0 1000 171,000
Iron, dissolved (ul/L) 479 0 1000 460,000
Manganese, total (ug/L) »82 0 80 24,000
Manganese, dissolved (ug/L) 477 0 77 15,000
Alumlnun (ug/L) 193 0 *IOO 18,000
Arsenic (ug/L) 160 <1 ' <1 11
Barium (ug/L) 260 0 70 410
Berylliun (ug/L) 259 <-3 <1 8
Cadmium (ug/L) 276 0 2 120
Cobalt (ug/L) 275 0 <3 280
Copper (wg/L) 278 0 <10 930
Chromium (ug/L) 171 0 <10 880
Chroalum, hexavalent (ug/L) 148 <1 <1 130
Lead (ug/L) 263 0 <10 47
Lithium (ug/L) 270 0 7 200
Molybdenum (ug/L) 257 .5 <10 60
Strontium (ug/L) 270 <1 325 4,400
VanadlUB (ug/L) 257 2 <6 20
Zinc (ug/L) 282 0 12 1,700
Dissolved organic carbon 409 0 1.4 108
Dissolved solids (residue on
evaporation at 180*C) 973 25 136 3,910
Dissolved solids (sum of 945 26 132 3,220
constituents)
EXPLANATION
l
I
Ul
Figure 16. Water quality in southwestern New Jersey. From Hardt (1963) and Fusillo et al. (1984) .
-------
-52-
are screened in the same general hydrogeologic horizon as the shallow
artesian wells on the RES site. Thus, data from the off-site wells are a
good example of background water quality of the shallow artesian zone at
RES. There is no comparison data for wells at the RES site screened in
the water table zone. However, it is believed that background water
quality is quite similar. Specific conductance values at the nearby (1-2
miles) Penns Grove Water Company (supplying the town of Bridgeport),
Pureland, Monsanto and other production wells, average 100-500 micromhos.
Dissolved solid totals average around 100 ppm at Penns Grove and other
nearby wells. Nitrate levels (as N) can reach 11 ppm. These relatively
high levels may be due to farming in the region. Iron and manganese
levels are also high; but this appears to be a function of natural condi-
tions in the Raritan-Magothy aquifer system. Dissolved iron concentrations
of greater than Ippm (10 times New Jersey drinking water standards) and
manganese levels of 0.1 ppm are not uncommon. Volatile organic concen-
trations for all wells in the vicinity are below 1 ppb.
In RES' first investigation of ground water contamination during 1972,
their consultant (G & M) utilized earth resistivity and chemical analysis
of ground water to delineate the contaminant plume. The resistivity
method depends upon conductance of an electical current through the
subsurface after a specific voltage has been applied. Ground water with
a high level of ionized constituents has a lower resistivity (greater
conductivity) than does water of low mineral content. RES' consultants
determined, that although other factors such as geology and saturation
may be important factors that affect resistivity, most of the resistivity
contrasts can be attributed to the chemical quality of the ground water.
Because these measurements are not dependent upon specific constituents,
the results can be qualitatively related to TDS, a parameter which RES
has used to track contamination for the past 15 years.
In the resistivity evaluation, a Wenner electrode configuration was
used. This configuration requires four electrodes to be placed in the
ground equadistant from each other and in a straight line. An electrical
current is applied to the ground through the outer two electrodes and the
potential drop across the inner electrodes is measured. By increasing
the electrode spacing, the depth being examined is increased by an equal
amount. 19 vertical profiles were made at the site, with each vertical
profile consisting of 17 electrode spacings which increased from 3 to 51
feet in increments of 3 feet. RES also made 79 fixed depth measurements
using an electrode spacing of 51 feet which RES decided was of sufficient
depth to include possible contamination. RES' consultants determined
that the results of the study were "conclusive enough to permit the
delineation of a zone of highly mineralized ground water" at the site.
Areas of highly mineralized ground water (high TDS) were inferred from
resistivity levels below 400 to 600 ohm-feet. Groundwater beneath the
center of the site showed resistivity levels as low as 100 ohm-feet.
Based on RES' initial interpretation of the data, ground water quality
was not affected beyond the immediate area of the facility and contami-
nation did not extend deeper than a maximum of 28 feet below land surface.
-------
-53-
RES1 consultants used chemical analyses (the IDS parameter in particular)
as a verifier of the resistivity data. 100 samples were collected from
75 well points on the site. Chemical parameters analyzed included: IDS,
volatile organics, chemical oxygen demand (COD), pH, copper, chromium,
magnesium, zinc, and nickel. Early in the study RES determined that no
specific constituent could be used as a reliable indicator of ground water
contamination. The IDS parameter, however, was a good signature for
highly mineralized water. Using values of 500 ppm IDS or more to repre-
sent contaminated ground water, RES considered the results consistent
with those of the resistivity study. The facility concluded that, based
on resistivity data and TDS values, contamination did not extend deeper
than a maximum of 28 feet below land surface and that the plume was
confined to the facility boundary (Figure 17a). It was through this
study that abatement wells were first suggested as a possible remediation
technique; an abatement program was intiated six months later. The
highest levels of contamination were found adjacent to the collection
and equalization ponds (what are now the L-series lagoons) where TDS
values of 15,000 ppm were recorded. Wells 13, 14, and 15 all showed
very high levels of copper, chromium, magnesium, and zinc. Copper
levels in Well 13 were as high as 135 ppm while Well 15 showed total
chromium values of 150 ppm. Most of the metal contamination was probably
due to leakage from surface impoundments in the central area of the
facility which are no longer in existence.
As part of the 1972 contamination study program, RES installed 6 abatement
wells adjacent to the L-series lagoons. The purpose of these wells was
to capture contamination emanating from the Central Plant Area. During
a 1975 investigation high TDS level indicated localized spreading of
contaminated ground water in the vicinity of Well 4 (Figure 17b). Four
additional abatement wells were installed in this area to further control
the migration of contaminants. TDS values from June 1977 (Figure 18a)
were very high beneath Basins 111, 112, 114 and 115 in the Central Plant
Area and around Abatement Well 21. By April, 1978, ground water contami-
nation appeared to be significant around the total Central Plant Area
rather than the specific area outlined in the 1977 data interpretation
(Figure 18b). TDS levels were still very high (9,000 ppm) beneath
Basins 111, 112, 114, and 115. Another area of concern became the
Basin Closure Area where readings of 32,000 ppm TDS were recorded at
Well EE. These high concentrations were believed to be the result of
leakage of high temperature waste from basin B-202G. TDS values increased
dramatically in Wells 4 and Y as well possibly as a result of leakage
from basin B-202G or from contaminant releases during the fire/ explosion
of December of 1977 which occurred in the area. Basins 111, 112, 114,
and 115 were removed in late 1978. Based on 1979 results, ground water
quality in this area improved. Wells 5 and J, which showed levels
between 5,000 and 7,000 ppm in 1978, showed decreases in 1979 to 200
and to 300 ppm respectively.
-------
-54-
•tell loatlon
Actim racUity Bnndciy
TCE Odntcurs (in ppn) • Harcil 1972
N
Feet
S"oo —
•toll location
Actlm FKUlty ftankiy
TOS Centaur* (in ppn) - 1975
N
Rollins Brvixonnental Services Facility Map - 1972
Figure 17. Total dissolved solids (TDS) contours at RES for (a) 1972 and
(b) 1975.
-------
-55-
(a)
• Hell Location
— - Active Facility Boundary
— SOO — TOS Contours (in ppn) - 1977
(b)
• Hell Location
— - — Active Facility Boundary
— SOO — TOS Contours (in ppn) - 1978
Rollins Envirrwmental Son/ires Facility Mnp - 1980
Figure 18. Total dissolved solids (TDS) contours at RES for (a) 1977 and
(b) 1978.
-------
-56-
Other than these particular areas, the extent of ground water contamination
did not change significantly (see Table 1 for a summary of IDS data
through 1980). In June, 1980, RES submitted ground water data from south
of a location where sealed drums of arsenic were stored between 1970-1974,
known as the "arsenic vaults." Well G showed arsenic concentrations of
0.34 mg/1 , well over the maximum allowable concentrations of 0.05 mg/1.
Also during this time period RES submitted Basin Closure Plans for the
B-series lagoons/impoundments. Even with improved waste management
practices (many of the surface impoundments in the Central Plant Area
were removed) IDS levels were still very high in 1981. The highest levels
of total dissolved solids centered around the Basin Closure Area and the
L-series lagoons with localized high levels (17,000 ppm TDS) found in the
North Marsh Area at Well 4. In the fall of 1981, RES installed clusters
of monitoring wells in the North Marsh Area (MA series); preliminary
results did not show contamination.
The first study undertaken at the RES site to analyze the ground water for
specific organic constituents was initiated in October, 1981. Ground water
samples were collected from monitoring wells II, W6, W7, EE2 and 29.
These wells were all located in and around the Basin Closure Area. Analyses
included Priorty Pollutants, metals, cyanide, and phenols. Volatile or-
ganics were evident in all 5 wells. Benzene, TCE, 1,2,-dichloroethane,
toluene, and ethylbenzene were all present in significant quantities. High
values included: 2,850 ppb benzene at W7; 1,930 ppb benzene at W6; 2,032
ppb 1,2,-dichloroethane at EE2; 353 ppb TCE at 29; 208 ppb toluene at II;
and 408 ppb ethylbenzene at W7. Of the five wells, ground water from II
was least contaminated with volatile organics. Ground water from W6, 29
and W7 showed evidence of base neutral organic contamination: 469 ppb
N-nitrosodimethylamine at W7; 246 ppb bis (2-chloroethyl) ether at 29;
and 22 ppb 1,2-dichlorobenzene at W6. W7 contained the highest total
concentration of base-neutral organic compounds. Acid extractable compounds
were most prevalent in ground water from wells W7 and 29: 1,925 ppb
2,4-dichlorophenol at W7; 1,593 ppb phenol at W7; 1,191 ppb 2,4-dimethyl-
phenol at 29; and 1,220 ppb phenol at 29. Once again, the highest values
were recorded at W7, downgradient of B-202, within the Basin Closure
Area. Until 1970, liquid wastes were deposited in unlined basin B-202.
Subsequently, the basin was used for acid neutralization sludges. Waste
management practices, particularly in and around B-202, are believed to
have been a major cause for the ground water contamination intercepted by
the above wells. Arsenic levels were also very high in W7 (2.05 ppm).
Contamination could have been the result of metal plating waste treatment
processes in B-202 or leakage from arsenic vaults to the north of B202.
TDS values were also very high in the Basin Closure Area, ranging from
10,529 ppm in W6 to 16,219 ppm in EE2.
By entering into an AGO on November 23, 1981, RES, for the first time,
became subject to a specific ground water monitoring program with the
intention of assessing the extent of ground water contamination at the
site. The monitoring wells utilized sampling parameters and a time
schedule for sampling which are presented in Table 2. Unfortunately,
-------
-57-
TDS CONCENTRATIOHS AT RES, 1972-1980 (ppm)
Well
1
3
4
5
6
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
P
Q
20
21
22
23
24
25
R
S
T
D
V
W
z
20A
20B
26
27
28
29
EE
HE
AA
DD
II
March1
1972
245
365
200
150
150
1,350
5,100
2,700
1 ,800
5,000
1 ,400
1 ,000
135
147
1 ,583
1,022
1,324
2,700
775
535
448
52
300
2,500
1,500
1 ,000
730
235
19761
1,000
575
1 ,100
4,500
2,500
5,000
1 ,500
15,000
1,500
3,700
234
496
1,578
1,792
1,924
487
733
266
500
3,200
700
1,595
2,500
500
19772
1,378
9,096
2,246
1,396
12,181
3,911
25,397
1,000
3,532
79
247
70
1,620
4,564
1 ,050
214
130
15,662
16,804
5,986
5,565
4,919
617
266
264
109
100
255
2,917
1 ,456
921
3,360
April
1978
3,315
9,596
1 ,950
1 ,482
2,115
3,522
9,116
1 ,987
2,369
197
392
6,106
1,529
257
4,543
525
3,831
3,655
325
222
268
102
1 29
197
356
826
719
857
March
1979
2,417
239
511
2,732
26,310
1,922
2,791
1,293
2,351
1,502
1 ,145
324
283
130
144
166
466
1 ,041
237
2,177
1 ,511
31 ,562
164
447
579
19803
8,376
475
2,042
5,610
2,380
6,033
179
210
362
5,827
1,947
2,232
4,207
4,080
754
250
111
124
265
640
1 ,340
1 ,097
1 ,093
2,460
3,303
15,350
261
268
1,095
1. Values are average from samples taken during 1975 and January, 1976.
2. Values are from samples taken in January, February, and March.
3. Values are averages from samples taken during 1980.
Table 1
-------
-58-
(A) SAMPLING WELLS MJD PARAMETERS AT RES - 1981 AGO
Wells Sampled Wells Sampled Wells Sampled Wells Sampled
Quarterly Yearly Quarterly for Quarterly for
PCBs Arsenic
2 Ob 28 DP1 R
21 29 DP2 U 14 29 W12
22 4 DP3 W 21 EE1 W17
23 EE3 DP4 CC 22 EE2 AV-1
24 HH TJP5 DD 322-2 II AV-2
25 11 EE1 4 AV-3
26 12 EE2 11 AV-4
27 13 II . 12 DP3
14 MW1 Ml 1
B MW3
C MW5
P4
Parameters Parameters
TDS TDS Cd
TOC TOC Cr
pH pH Cu
TOX TOX Zn
As Pb
Phenols
MO3-N
(B) SAMPLING WELLS AND PARAMETERS AT RES - 1983 AGO (unsigned)
Wells Sampled Wells Sampled Wells Sampled
Quarterly Yearly Quarterly for
PCBs
20b 25 DPI P4
21-a 4 DP2 R 14
22 HH DP3 D 21-a
23 35 DP4 W 22
24 DPS CC 322-2
305 and D 13 DD
31S and D 1411
32S and D B MW5
33S and D C W21
34S and D MW1 W23
MW3
MA6S,I,D
MAI OS,I,D
MA11S,I,D
Parameters Parameters
TDS TDS Cd
TOC TOC Cr
pH pH Cu
TOX TOX Zn
AS
Phenols
M03-H
Table 2
-------
-59-
the Order did not specify provisions to sample wells for organic consti-
tuents besides the broad based indicators - TOC and TOX. The Order did,
however, require that 15 wells be sampled quarterly and 17 annually for
arsenic. Five wells screened in the shallow artesian zone were in place
by this time and were part of the monitoring program. By March, 1982,
RES was operating with both the 30-series and 20-series abatement wells.
The older 20-series system is adjacent to the L-series lagoons and the
30-series wells (screened in both shallow and deeper levels of the water
table zone) intercept contaminated ground water from the Basin Closure
Area and North Marsh Area.
Results based on the new monitoring program through 1983 were not signifi-
cantly different than results up to that time. For the first time,
however, arsenic analyses were being performed over a wide area. Arsenic
contamination was most prevalent in the Basin Closure Area and the North
Marsh Area. The highest recorded arsenic values were from EE3, near
B-202, and the arsenic vaults which showed concentrations in 1982 of 1.02
ppm, 20 times the drinking water standard of 0.05 ppm. Other values in
the Basin Closure Area included: 0.13 ppm at W12, 0.69 ppm at EE2, 0.18
ppm at AVI and 0.13 ppm at AV3a. In the North Marsh Area, downgradient
of the Basin Closure Area, values were: 0.50 ppm at MA10I, 0.85 ppm at
31D, 0.35 ppm at 330, and 0.49 ppm at 29. While it cannot be certain
whether arsenic contamination is a result of leakage specifically from
the arsenic vaults, it appears reasonably certain that contamination
is from the Basin Closure Area in general. Closure of the basin area,
which includes all B-series impoundments, began in 1982 and was completed
in 1986, prior to the Task Force Inspection.
TOX values, a broad indicator of organic contamination, were relatively
high in the North Marsh Area in 1982, especially around Well 4a where
levels reached 33.3 ppm. Maximum allowable ground water concentrations
for TOX are 0.05 ppm. High levels were also found in Wells 29, MW5 and
HH. Unfortunately RES used (and still uses) sampling methods whose
detection limits are above drinking water standards; thus a true picture
of organic contamination is not available. The same is true for lead.
The detection limit of 0.2 ppm is well above the drinking water standard
of 0.05 ppm. Even so, elevated levels of lead were found in the North
Marsh Area (1.4 ppm at MA10S) at up to 20 times the drinking water standard.
Elevated levels of chromium and copper were also found in the North Marsh
Area during the 1982 studies. Chromium contamination was most prevalent
at Wells MA10S, I, and MA11S where values of up to 1.46 ppm were recorded.
Minor copper contamination also exists in the North Marsh Area; values of
1.10 ppm and 1.04 ppm were recorded at Wells MA10I and 31S respectively.
A revised AGO was issued in August, 1983. Although the ACO was never
signed, RES adhered to its ground water monitoring program (Table 2). It
differed from the 1981 program in that many of the wells in the original
sampling program, because of basin closure, were replaced by wells in the
North Marsh Area (the MA-series and 30-series wells). Also, in the 1983
Order, quarterly analyses for arsenic were no longer required.
-------
-60-
Arsenic remained a parameter for yearly sampling, however. This monitoring
program did not change appreciably through 1985. Annual surveys for both
1984 and 1985 concluded that the "extent of contamination in the water
table zone (remains) virtually unchanged."
In 1984 the 500 mg/1 IDS contour, which RES has used to define ground water
contamination, moved northward into the North Marsh Area, possibly as a
result of pumpage from the 30-series wells. Otherwise, IDS levels did
not change significantly (Figure 19a). As in 1981-1983, TOX detection
limits were above drinking water standards; thus, this indicator did not
adequately delineate organic contamination. TOX levels greater than 1
mg/1 were found in Wells 20B, 4a, 24 and 25 (1.2 ppm., 4.9 ppm, 2.6 ppm,
and 1.3 ppm respectively, were detected). These high values appeared in
both the North Marsh Area and along the northern boundary of the L-series
lagoons. Phenol, chromium and arsenic contamination was confined to the
same area cited above. Arsenic levels of 0.12 ppm and 0.10 ppm were
detected in Wells 34S and MWla respectively, and 2.50 ppm chromium was
detected at 30S. High cadmium levels were recorded in wells adjacent to
the L-series lagoons. It is important to note that both inorganic
(metals, TDS) and organic (TOC, TOX) parameters indicated that contaminat-
ion was present in the deeper ground water zones of the North Marsh
Area, at levels 40-70 feet below land surface. RES' consultants inter-
preted this zone to be deeper portion of the water table zone. In 1984,
the shallow artesian zone wells (DP1-5) continued to yield uncontaminated
ground water with TDS levels averaging under 200 ppm.
The ground water monitoring program did not change during 1985 and conclu-
sions regarding ground water contamination remained essentially the same.
TDS distribution remained constant. Very high concentrations continued
to be detected adjacent to the L-series lagoons. Because basin closure
(B-series Basins) included the removal of all wells in the area, ground
water quality beneath this area could not be determined. Levels of
inorganic and organic contamination remained close to levels observed in
1984. Unfortunately, the analytical detection limit for arsenic increased
from 0.10 to 0.1, above drinking water standards. Therefore, values
attained in 1985 are not meaningful. For the first time, ground water
from one of the shallow artesian wells (DP5), showed minor amounts of
l,2dichloroethane and trichloroethylene contamination. After resampling,
these results were shown to be representative of ground water conditions.
Ground water from other deep wells continued to be of good quality. RES'
consultants conducted an electrical earth resistivity survey as required
by the 1981 AGO. RES concluded that the results confirmed those of the
ground water study. Multiple depth measurements were made by varying
electrode spacing from 20 to 100 feet, in 20 foot increments. It is
interesting to note that even at a 100 foot spacing (which describes
resistivity at a depth of 100 feet), very low resistivity measurements
were recorded (40 to 100 Ohm/feet) implying highly mineralized ground
water at depth.
-------
-61-
(a)
Basin Clocuxv Area t i
(waste stahiliMd and caffed) \ I
Activ. Facility Boundary
^iOO — TD6 Contours (in feet) - 1984
Rollins Environmental Servlde*
Facility Map - 1987
ftet
(b)
toll in* Diviromental Service*
Facility Map - 1987
Well Location
(not all well* show)
—— - — Activ* Facility Boundary
IDS Contours (in feet) - 1986
Feet
Figure 19. Total dissolved solids (TDS) contours at RES for (a) 1984 and
(b) 1986.
-------
-62-
In 1985, RES was also attempting to comply with RCRA Part B Permit appli-
cation requirements as well as Interim Status (40 CFR 265) regulations.
RES had been operating 10 RCRA "regulated units": the 8 L-series lagoons,
B-206, and B-207. As required under Interim Status, RES must monitor these
units in order to ascertain whether they are leaking contaminants into
the ground water. After a technical NOD was issued in August 1985, RES
resubmitted their RCRA Part B application in December and specified that
8 wells (new wells W24 through W31) would monitor basins B-206 and B-207.
RES claimed that these units were not leaking and requested that NJDEP
place them in a Detection Monitoring Program. The RCRA wells were to be
sampled for parameters and at a frequency already specified in the unsigned
1983 ACO ground water monitoring program (see Table 2). Because of
acknowledged ground water contamination, RES also requested that NJDEP
place the rest of the site in a Corrective Action Program. This program
consisted of the 17 pumping wells already in operation (the 30-series and
20-series wells). RES' "Interim Status" wells would include those sampled
from 1983-1985 (in compliance with the 1983 ACO) along with wells W24-31
around B-206 and B-207.
In another technical NOD, dated April 17, 1986, in reference to RES'
revised RCRA Part B application, NJDEP indentified specific deficiencies
particular to the RES ground water program. With regard to ground water
quality, some of these deficiencies included:
1) the results of any statistical analysis performed to date, and a
description of the procedure used needs to be provided, especially for
the detection monitoring system around surface impoundments B206 and
B207. The current system does not meet the requirements of N.J.A.C.
7:14A-6.15.
2) RES should provide a decription of any plume of contamination that has
entered the ground water from the facility including: (a) the plume
delineated on the topographic map required under N.J.A.C. 7:26-12.2(e)13
and, (b) indentification of the concentration of each hazardous consti-
tuent listed in N.J.A.C. 7:26-8.16 throughout the plume or identification
of the maximum concentrations of each hazardous constituent listed in
N.J.A.C. 7:26-8.16 in the plume.
3) In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:26-12.2(g)5, RES must provide detailed
plans describing the proposed ground water monitoring program to be
implemented to meet the requirements of N.J.A.C. 7:14-6.15(h).
4) RES must submit sufficient information, supporting data, and analyses
used to establish a corrective action program which meets the require-
ments of N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.15(k) and includes the extent and concentrations
of constituents in N.J.A.C. 7:268.16 and concentration limits for each
hazardous constituent found in the ground water as set forth in N.J.A.C.
7:14A-6.15(e).
-------
-63-
The facility realized that, because the entire site was contaminated and
B-206 and B-207 were downgradient of the contaminated areas and because
B-206 and B-207 contain the same contaminants as does the ground water
flowing beneath it, statistical analysis of upgradient and downgradient
wells would not be able to show whether or not the basins were leaking
as required by a Detection Monitoring Program. For this reason RES
decided to proceed as if the basins were leaking contaminants into the
ground water and include them in a State Corrective Action Program for
the entire site.
RES admitted that it did not have enough data to delineate the contaminant
plume with respect to all constituents found in the ground water. It did,
however, propose a new monitoring plan which would take into account
specific organic constituents. Based on IDS data already submitted, RES
gave a general estimate of plume size: 2,300 feet long, 1,400 feet wide
and 25 feet thick. RES contended that based upon analyses following the
new monitoring plan, the facility would be able to delineate the plume
for specific parameters and be able to change the abatement system accord-
ingly. A significant portion of the NOD dealt with RES' interpretation
of the local hydrogeologic regime, an interpretation which NJDEP believed
to be inadequate. RES' response was essentially a summary of much of the
information discussed in the preceding Section 3 on Site Hydrogeology. A
critical analysis of RES interpretations of hydrogeologic data and histor-
ical ground water quality data will follow in Section 5.
Because NJDEP never gave a formal response to the new monitoring plan pro-
posed by RES, the facility continued the monitoring plan as specified in
the unsigned 1983 AGO (with the addition of Wells W24-31). In the summer
of 1986, EPA sampled 9 wells at the facility. All samples were collected
in accordance with EPA, Region II protocol, and all samples were split
with RES personnel. Results of total metal analyses indicated that
arsenic and chromium contamination continued to be a problem at the site.
Four of the 9 wells showed contaminant concentrations above drinking
water standards (0.14 ppm at Well 31D and 21 ppm Cr at Well 15). Zinc,
lead, and copper contamination was found in isolated areas. Results of
organic analyses (volatiles and non-volatiles) indicated substantial
organic contamination in Wells 4A, 15, 31D, 31S, II and 24. Approximately
30 organic compounds were detected. The highest values of organic contam-
inants were detected in Well 4A, an area of known organic contamination.
Results from Well 4A included: 18 ppm toluene, 7.7 ppm TCE, 5.1 ppm
napthalene, and 1.2 ppm ethylbenzene. While this was not meant to be
comprehensive plume analysis, it did show the need for much more rigorous
sampling and essentially confirmed EPA results.
Prior to the Task Force Investigation, RES submitted its 1986 Annual Ground
Water Report. As mentioned above, sampling locations and parameters had
not changed significantly from preceding years. Interpretations were
also similar to those of the previous 4 years. The report concluded that
-------
-64-
ground water contamination remains, for the most part, confined to the
site and can be defined by the 500 mg/1 IDS contour (see Figure 19b).
Exceptions include Wells R and AV2 which show some organic contamination.
In the 1986 data analysis, detection limits were lowered for arsenic and
lead to below drink water standards, thereby making the data more meaning-
ful and conclusive, results were similar to those of the EPA study from
the previous summer.
Chromium contamination continues to be evident in the North Marsh Area
(although levels exceeding drinking water standards have been observed
in the Central Plant Area as well - as seen in Wells 14 [0.07 ppm] and
MW3a [0.05 ppm]). Organic contamination was again detected in shallow
artesian well DP5. RES recommended that DP5 be sampled for VOCs on a
quarterly basis to determine the concentration for these compounds.
Twenty-one ground water samples were taken as part of the Ground Water
Task Force and analyzed for the full "Appendix IX" sampling suite.
Results are presented in another section.
-------
-65-
5. Discussion
Rollins Environmental Services (RES) began operation in 1969; soon
after, the facility documented ground water contamination beneath
the plant site. The first ground water assessment study was submitted
in early 1972. Using Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) as an indicator
of contamination, RES and their consultants, Geraghty and Miller,
continued through the next 10 years to monitor what they considered
the contaminant plume and to abate the spreading of contaminants by
installing pumping wells on the site. In November of 1981, RES and
NJDEP entered into a Consent Agreement whereby RES would institute a
more formal plan to describe site hydrogeology and assess ground
water contamination. Specific organics were first detected in the
ground water beneath the RES site as a result of a study conducted
in early 1982. These finding were confirmed in subsequent analyses
performed in 1985, 1986, and most recently, during the 1987 Ground
Water Task Force Investigation. RES, however, still uses TDS as the
parameter to define the boundary of ground water contamination. The
facility has been submitting annual reports for the last 5 years
which describe the progress of the contamination abatement program.
According to RES, the contaminant plume, as defined by TDS, continues
to remain confined to the facility boundary. RES concludes that the
extent of ground water contamination remains virtually unchanged
since 1983 and maintains that their ground water pumping system
(which has also remained the same since 1983) is "effectively limiting
contaminated ground water to the site."
There are currently 123 ground water monitoring wells in or around
the perimeter of the RES site. 81 of these wells are either currently
used in a monitoring program or have been used for periodic sampling
within the last few years. The number of wells whose integrity has
been maintained through the years and whose construction quality and
maintenance can insure precise and accurate sampling results is sign-
ificantly lower. Much of the work concerning hydrogeology, plume
assessment, and ground water contamination abatement at the RES site
has been produced as a result the 1972 study and the studies submitted
in 1981-1982 as part of
the 1981 AGO requirements.
The April 1972 study, RES' first attempt to characterize site hydro-
geology and define the extent of contamination, became the basis and
reference report for subsequent work. As mentioned in the previous
chapter, the study consisted of an earth resistivity survey and the
installation of monitoring wells in the water table aquifer. Test
drilling was carried out simultaneously with the resistivity survey
to provide the control necessary to substantiate the validity of the
method. Apparent earth resistivity is controlled primarly by the
types of sediments in the subsurface, the degree of saturation of the
sediments, and the concentration of conducting ions within the
ground water. Thus, an understanding of the subsurface is extremely
important, especially at a especially at a site such as RES where
-------
-66-
the underlying stratigraphy is quite complex. RES used curves of apparent
resistivity vesus depth and cumulative resistivity versus depth to inter-
pret the data. 600 to 800 Ohm-feet was used as a cutoff value to indicate
zones of possibly high levels of mineralized waters (with readings below
600 Ohm-feet signifying possible ground water contamination). Through
this program, RES concluded that contamination did not extend beyond the
facility boundary and did not exist deeper "than a maximum of 28 feet
below land surface." However, upon review of the vertical resistivity
profiles, these conclusions are not readily apparent. Final conclusions
were reached by interpreting cumulative resistivity curves instead of the
600 to 800 Ohm-feet cutoff values. A series of straight lines were drawn
through points in the profiles. Changes in slope represented change in
geology or ground water quality. For example, a decrease in slope may
signify a decrease in ground water quality.
Examples presented in Figure 20 a,b,c show the highly subjective nature
of these interpretations. In Profile RP5, RES' consultants highlighted
a decrease in slope within 10 feet of land surface and determined it to
signify a zone of highly mineralized ground water. However, one could
draw a straight line through the whole set of points and interpret there
to be contamination to a depth of 48 feet below land surface; apparent
resistivities below 600 ohm-feet are through the entire vertical sequence.
In RP6, resistivity decreases down to a depth of 51 feet. RES, however,
concluded that, based on its interpretation of cumulative resistivity,
contamination was only evident between depths of 9 and 27 feet below land
surface. All resistivity readings in RP7 show low levels through a depth
of 51 feet. By plotting slope changes in cumulative resistivities, RES'
consultants concluded that contamination was only present between 3 and
21 feet below land surface. This interpretation, again, is highly sub-
jective. Theoretical methods of interpretation such as curve matching
might have aided in the study. With the help of geologic logs, field
data could be plotted and compared with master curves developed for a
number of resistivity layers with defined ratios of resistivity and thick-
ness. With more control on geology, a negative resistivity departure
method could have been used to correct the data and provide more meaningful
interpretations.
17 wells were installed as part of the 1972 study. Based on the drill
logs from these wells, 2 geologic cross-sections were developed (Figure
21a). According to RES interpretations, a "more or less continuous" clay
zone exists beneath the tract and that the top of this clay ranges from +3
to -18 feet in elevation. Upon review of the logs, the interpretation of
a continuous clay layer appears unsubstantiated. There are clay lenses
throughout the site; however, they do not appear to be laterally continuous.
Several of the logs show sand to sand with some clay through entire
borings (Wells D, F, and P). Temporary well screens were set at various
depths in several wells to obtain vertical profiles of total dissolved
solids (TDS) (Figure 21b). Of the 16 wells that were profiled,
-------
VERTICAL RESISTIVITY PROFILE
HP 5
igrtly mineralized
ground water
'f 400
-s
je
*
| 200
4»
g
< o
36
VERTJCAL RESISTIVITY PROFILE
RP6
42
48
42
48
VERTICAL RESISTIVITY PROFILE
RP7
'Highly mineralized
ground water
12 IS 24 30 36 42
Ovpfh Ulow Und wrfoc«, In fe«t UlKtrede (facing)
48
6 •?
•I
c
4 2
•»
e
^
c
2
o
"x
4 =
V*
•»
CN
r-
CTi
I
w
I
8
o
(N
0)
-------
-68-
Geologic Cross-sections with TDS Data at RES - 1972
NW
-lOf-
-»h
3 -»u
-i
. 30r
I 29-
T.D.
SW
1ft-
0
-10-
-20
-X
X
20
10
0
-10
-20
•:
T.O.
T.O.
1535
1731
X255
I77J
12771
12)4
3*000
13*000 I54J
1158
2421
-IHS3
1877
1 448
1334
1332
Z247
"TTot
174 •
'140,
34*
278
300
30
20
10
-10
-20-
-30
SW
1700
1585
I«4
„
11777
1763
I 3411
11030
1396
11324
1545
1358
1315
_BU«1
3087
13
C ~™7
|2W7 419|
1022
1577
1322
149
152
1422
] Woll moon totring
T Tompony Mil Kroon toHlng
731 Totol diMlTCrf toll* In porn por million
Datum: «IO foot at Inclnorator pod
500
Feet
Figure 21. Geologic cross-sections with total dissolved solids (TDS) data
at RES. From Geraghty & Miller (1972).
-------
-69-
11 of them showed a decrease in IDS below 500 ppm 10 to 20 feet below land
surface. However, for several wells near unlined surface impoundments,
IDS levels remained well above 500 ppm below depths of 20 feet.
RES determined that the ground water discharge from the facility boundary
to Raccoon Creek was on the order of 5,000 gallons per day. While the
cross-sectional area and hydraulic gradient (2,000 ft and .0025 respectively)
are reasonable values, the estimated hydraulic conductivity and unit thick-
ness may be inaccurate. Because of the thick clay layers adjacent to
Raccoon Creek, RES assumed a low permeability of 100 gpd/ft^. There are,
however, areas adjacent to the creek where permeabilities are probably
substantially higher. Logs of Wells 25, MW7, K, and DP2, all adjacent to
Raccoon Creek, show thick sand layers. Hydraulic conductivity values at
some shallow wells are greater than 1,000 gpd/ft^. Another parameter,
the average thickness of the shallow deposits affected by contamination,
which RES calculated as 10 feet, is also quite conservative. The thick-
ness, based on the data in the 1972 report, is at least 20 feet in many
areas, and from later data from the North Marsh Area, the thickness of
contaminated sediment may be as high as 40 to 70 feet. Discharge to
Raccoon Creek may be over 100,000 gpd from the water table aquifer.
The RES abatement system improved through the 1970's as more wells were
installed and pumpage rates were increased. Major changes to the monitoring
program occurred as a result of the November, 1981, AGO. A shallow
artesian zone well test carried out in October, 1981, was designed to
characterize the hydrologic properties of the shallow artesian zone and
the degree of connection to the water table zone. The results of this
test are presented in Chapter 3. Generally, water table wells to the
south of DP4 (the shallow artesian well which was pumped) showed some
drawndown while those to the southeast did not. The test was run primarily
for qualitative purposes; the conclusion that there is a hydraulic connec-
tion between aquifers in the Basin Closure Area is a valid one. Unfortu-
nately this type of test was not run in the Central Plant Area where most
of the contamination problems exist. However, an inherent problem in
running this test in a contaminated area is drawing down contaminated
ground water into an uncontaminated aquifer. Background water level
readings were not taken in some wells; because of the low drawdown in
these wells, spurious conclusions may have been reached. Results from
the EE series wells, 30 feet from the pumping well and screened at
different levels in the water table zone, are excellent evidence of the
connection between the two aquifers. EE2 (screened at 26-30 feet) and
EE3 (screened at 33-39 feet) showed close to a foot of drawdown. Drawdown
was observed only 10 minutes after pumping of DPS began. This is a very
quick response and a very large drawdown in a zone which RES contends is
separated from the shallow artesian zone by 7 feet of low permeability
clay. In the area of the EE series wells, the aquifer acts almost
unconfined from the "water table zone" through the "shallow artesian
zone." The well log of DP3, however, shows 6-8 feet of "stiff" clay at
48 to 56 feet below land
-------
-70-
surface. If this clay layer is continuous in the southern part of the
facility, it may explain why water table wells in that area do not show
appreciable drawdown. The well test should have proceeded for more than
29 hours to determine delayed yield effects.
The quantitative results of the well test are tenuous. The transmissivity
(90,000 gpd/ft) and storage coefficient (4.6 x 10~4) were derived from
leaky artesian type-curves. However, it is not certain what assumptions
were considered in using the curves. DP4 is a partially penetrating well;
this characteristic might have affected the results if not taken into
consideration. The aquifer characteristics are probably more complex
than those assumed using simple leaky artesian type-curves. Well logs do
not support a 7 foot confining layer of any lateral continuity. The
aquifer thickness is derived from one well log, that of the sealed Main
Production Well. According to the abbreviated geologic log of the Main
Production Well, a sandy/gravel unit, presumeably the shallow artesian
zone, exists between 36 and 92 feet below land surface. Based on the
heterogeneous quality of the subsurface described in other logs, it is
highly unlikely that the shallow artesian zone is 53 feet thick through-
out the entire site. In the North Marsh Area, many of the water table
zone wells are screened below a depth 36 feet placing them, stratigraph-
ically, in the shallow artesian zone with no intervening confining layer.
On August 2, 1982, in order to design a more adequate pumping program at
the facility, RES ran a number of short term well tests in the water
table zone. As described in Chapter III, an alternating sequence of
pumping wells was used whereby each well would be pumped for 12 hours
with 6 hours overlap between the time one well would be turned on and the
previous one turned off. Distance-drawdown graphs were made for each
pumping well after 12 hours of continuous pumping. Using these graphs,
drawdowns at midpoints (between two pumping wells) were determined. For
adjacent pumping wells the midpoint drawdown measurements were added and
the resulting value represented the minimum drawdown between two pumping
wells. If there was no drawdown at the midpoint, RES concluded that
another abatement well would be needed. Field determinations were matched
with formula calculations. Calculations based on Jacob's straight line
method were used to determine transmissivity, storativity
conductivity. A formula from a text book by Todd (1959),
Hydrology, was used to check the adequacy of the drawdown
range between two wells:
and hydraulic
Ground Water
Q=
k=
=
r=
hu=
h
-------
-71-
If the discharge rates determined from Todd's formula were greater than
discharge rates in the field, abatement wells would have to be added to
the system.
Both the field methods and formula calculations contain flaws. The
superimposed "midpoint" drawdown between two pumping wells were obtained
by assuming that the two wells were pumping for the same 12 hour time
period. This, however, was not the case. In RES' sequential pumping
scheme, two adjacent wells would pump simultaneously for only 6 hours.
No steady state was reached since during that time period the midpoint
observation well was affected by starting up one of the wells. The
observation wells may have been influenced by the residual drawdown effects
from other pumping wells and natural diurnal effects. The midpoint values,
important field measurements that determine the pumping zone of influence,
may, as a result of this test method, be higher than they should be.
The flaws in the formula calculations used to check the field results are
serious because they are based on fallacious assumptions. RES used Jacob's
straight line method (for a discussion of this method, see Kruseman and
DeRidder, 1970) to determine values for transmissivity (T) and storativity
(S). However, using this method in a unconfined aquifer usually requires
that the aquifer be pumped for greater than 12 hours in order that u <
0.01 (u is a parameter within the Theis equation). Delayed yield affects
of the water table aquifer, which are needed to calculate T and S, are
not taken into consideration. However, even if delayed yield occurs
during the 12 hours of pumping, it would be masked by the effects of
turning off one of the pumping wells. Todd's formula is also based on
strict assumptions. This formula which describes a minimum Q (flow rate)
to produce drawdown between two pumping wells, assumes fully penetrating
pumping wells and steady state conditions. Both of these conditions are
not met in this study. Values used in the equation are suspect. After
review of appropriate well logs, aquifer thickness calculations appear
to be unsubstantiated. Because of continuous pumping at the facility,
static water level measurements are difficult to obtain. The values that
RES uses are estimates in many cases and are not based on field data.
Because of a lack of sound geologic and hydrologic information at the
site, the pumpage rates that RES had determined to be necessary to confine
contaminated ground water to the site may be inadequate.
Another purpose of the above study was to establish a schedule for inter-
mittent pumping once required pumping rates were determined. In comparing
static water levels and induced water levels near abatement wells, RES
computed how much time a well could be turned off and still contain "a
drop of water" within its cone of drawdown. For example, if a pumping
gradient is 12 times steeper than the natural gradient, by pumping a well
for 1 day and leaving it off for 12 days, theoretically, contaminated
ground water will not leave the capture zone. Once again, however, the
values used in the calculations are suspect. Static water level gradients
-------
-72-
are often estimates and induced drawdown gradients may be affected by other
pumping wells. Also, the assumption that this scheme works is a theore-
tical one, not based on any field studies. RES concludes that the
average total pumping rate in this alternating pumping scheme should be
97 gpm (140,000 gpd) to effectively maintain an adequate pumping barrier
to confine ground water contamination to the site. However, upon review
of the data used to make these calculations, this pumping scheme may
need substantial revision. Moreover, the system has been developed to
prohibit contamination from leaving the site; it is a passive system.
It is not designed to actively remediate contamination.
Since 1972, when ground water contamination beneath the facility was first
documented, RES has used total dissolved solids (IDS) as the parameter
to define the limits of the contaminant plume. Substantial organic con-
tamination was detected in 1981. RES contends that the extent of organic
as well as arsenic and heavy metal contamination is also "confined to the
RES site and that the 500 mg/1 IDS line accurately describes the extent
of ... contamination." The facility concludes that, "based on indicator
parameters (IDS, TOC, TOX, and phenols), the extent of contamination in
the water table zone is virtually unchanged since [1983], indicating that
continued pumping of the abatement well system is effectively confining
contaminated ground water to the site."
For the most part, IDS levels have not changed substantially through time.
There does, however, appear to be some migration of highly mineralized
water toward the North Marsh Area. The highest levels are recorded ad-
jacent to the unlined L-series lagoons. While the lagoons are known to
be leaking, some of the very high readings may be a function of induced
recharge of the nearby pumping wells. In its annual submittals, RES
appears to interpret data with an obvious bias. If TDS levels are in-
creasing at a certain well, RES contends that nearby abatement wells are
responsible by drawing in and capturing contaminated ground water (thereby
temporarily increasing contamination in the observed area). If TDS
levels are decreasing at a well, RES contends that the abatement system
has adequately reduced contamination in that area. Thus, by following
RES' philosophy: if TDS levels are higher, the abatement system is
working; if TDS levels are lower, the abatement system is also working.
As mentioned previously, detection limits for some parameters (lead,
arsenic and TOX) have been higher than the respective drinking water
standards. In the 1986 annual survey, lead and arsenic detection limits
were lowered to appropriate levels; however, TOX detection limits of 1 ppm
were still inadequate. 50 ppb total volatile organics is a standard
operating base level signifying contamination. During 1986 and 1987 more
rigorous evaluations were made of RES ground water quality problem. A
Comprehensive Ground Water Monitoring Evaluation (CME) in 1986 as well as
this Task Force have found significant organic contamination at the site.
-------
-73-
Highly mineralized ground water (signified by high IDS) is most prevalent
adjacent to the L-series lagoons. Ground Water contaminated with metals
in the North Marsh Area near Well 4A. Organics are also found in the Main
Plant Area. Very little monitoring has been done in the South Marsh
Area. This area is of importance as it is downgradient from the leaking
L-series lagoons and may act as a contaminant pathway to Raccoon Creek.
Sampling for volatile organic compounds by RES in 1986 resulted in the
detection of several organic compounds in low concentrations at Well DPS
which is screened in the shallow artesian zone. DPI has a relatively
high phenolic concentrations (0.10 ppm) and all of the deep wells show
elevated nitrate levels. The deep wells in the North Marsh Area, which
may be directly connected or a part of the shallow artesian zone in that
area, show contaminant concentrations similar to those of shallow wells
in the same area. Because these wells are screened as deep as 70 feet
below land surface, there are implications of significant pathways for
the downward migration of contaminants in North Marsh Area. Even at a
depth of 70 feet, sand is encountered.
While the 500 ppm TDS line may delineate the boundary of highly mineralized
water, it cannot be used to define the extent of organic or heavy metal
contamination - there is no causal relationship between high TDS and or-
ganics or metals. These "plumes" of contamination are centered in
different areas and because the hydrogeologic regime is complex (and
certainly not simplified by the alternating pumping sequence), direction
of flow may be different as well. Wells MA10, MA11, E and AV2, which all
lie outside the 500 ppm TDS contour line, show metal and/or organic
contamination. It is uncertain whether there is organic or metal con-
tamination within the South Marsh Area as this areas has not been adequately
monitored.
As RES' monitoring program becomes more complex, especially now that organic
contamination must be assessed, the integrity of the existing well system
becomes more important. Some of the wells on site, such as the W-series
in the South Marsh Area, are well points and were not meant for rigorous
ground water monitoring. During the inspection, caps were off wells (MWla)
and other were bent (Well 15). In the North Marsh Area, the inspection
team members were able to lift some of the MA-series wells (MA10, MA11)
out of the ground manually. Wells MA-5I through MA-11I and D were not
constructed properly. The annular spacing was filled with drill cuttings.
This may develop a vertical pathway whereby contamination in the shallow
zone may enter deeper zones. In some of the deep MA-series wells, contami-
nation is pronounced. Poor well construction may be a contributing factor
to ground water degredation at depth in the North Marsh Area. Some of
the wells which were installed at the facility during the early and mid
1970s are not supported by adequate well logs and construction details
and, therefore, should not be used in a long-term sampling assessment or
corrective action program.
-------
-74-
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
The RES facility has been in operation for 18 years. In the early 1970s
RES treated, stored, and/or disposed of hazardous waste in surface im
poundments, basins, landfills, etc. throughout most of the 78 acre site.
Many of these units were unlined and probably the source of organic and
inorganic contamination to soils and the underlying water table aquifer.
RES began to scale down their operations in the late 1970s by closing
and backfilling many of the units in the Central Plant Area. In 1986,
RES completed hazardous waste stabilization and final capping of the
B-series basins (Basin Closure Area) in the northern portion of the
facility. Currently, RES only incinerates hazardous waste. Residue
from this process is manifested off-site as a hazardous waste. Pretreated
scrubber effluent is sent to the RCRA regulated L-series lagoons. After
cooling, the water is discharged to Raccoon Creak under the limitations
imposed by a NJPDES permit. The only other regulated units at the site
are basins B-206 and B-207, both part of a biological treatment system
which only accepts on-site generated sanitary waste and ground water
captured by the contamination abatement well system. This water is also
discharged to Raccoon Creek via the L-series lagoons. Closure plans for
B-206 and B-207 and the L-series lagoons have been submitted to NJDEP
and EPA. RES intends to replace these units with above-ground tanks.
The unlined or clay-based L-series lagoons are known to be leaking highly
mineralized water into the underlying water table zone. It is not certain
if B206 and B207 are leaking as they accept the same contaminated ground
water which underlies the units. Waste stabilization and capping of the
Basin Closure Area was recently completed. These actions were designed
to minimize ground water contamination in the future. Besides these
specific areas, other sources of ground water contamination must be
generalized to include much of the Central Plant Area where waste was
stored and/or treated.
RES began to study ground water contamination in 1972; however a formal
monitoring and plume assessment plan was not instituted until November,
1981, through a signed Consent Order with the State. Although the facility
has installed close to 200 wells in and around the site (not all are
currently in use or operable) and has a ground water abatement system in
place, RES' current assessment program has not adequately definded site
hydrogeology or the rate and extent of contamination beneath the site
pursuant to 265.93(d). Two generalized cross-sections were developed in
1972 as part of their first report. The only other cross-sections were
drawn in 1982 to show the existence of a vertical downward ground water
flow gradient at the site. RES contends that there are two discrete
aquifers beneath the facility: a water table zone and a shallow artesian
zone. Review of well logs does not support this view. Site geology is
very complex; RES must use available data to adequately characterize the
subsurface. Additionally, more exploratory drilling should be done.
-------
-75-
Down hole geophysics should be used at existing wells where possible and
at all future wells for the same purpose.
Well tests of 1981 and 1982 were not adequate to characterize the hydrologic
regime at the site. Longer term well tests, 48 to 72 hours, need to be
performed in the water table aquifer so that hydraulic effects during and
after delayed yield can be evaluated. Any well used for pumping or obser-
vation must be evaluated for construction integrity and must be supported
by adequate well logs. Well tests in the shallow artesian zone is a more
tenuous proposal because of the possible induced downward migration of
contamination associated with the tests. Pumping the shallow aquifer
as a means of stressing the shallow artesian zone should be considered.
Transmissivity and storativity values of the shallow artesian zone north
of the Basin Closure Area are reasonable; values for the water table zone
are more suspect. Information from current geologic logs or new drilling
projects must be integrated into the interpretation of well test results.
Static water level gradients from the water table and shallow artesian
zones, aquifer thickness, and the extent and thickness of clay lenses or
layers, are all parameters which have not been adequately evaluated. RES
should drill more deep wells on the site; the 5 existing ones are not
enough to understand ground water flow and other hydrogeologic character-
istics of the shallow artesian zone.
General parameters such as IDS, TOX, phenols, and metals have been used
by RES to define the extent of ground water contamination since 1972.
These parameters, by themselves, are not adequate as they do not consider
the specific organic contaminants detected at the facility. Even the
TOX parameter, which is a general parameter for organic contamination,
has not been used properly, as the detection limit has been higher than
the drinking water quality standard. RES did submit a new sampling
program containing a more rigorous list of parameters to the State in
1986 but this was not agreed upon and was never implemented. RES must
implement a program which tests for specific constituents detected in
the Task Force sampling inspection and previous sampling efforts and
must define the rate and extent of contamination based on this more
comprehensive list of parameters. This will entail the installation of
new monitoring wells.
Specifically, contaminant information is lacking in the South Marsh Area,
the shallow artesian zone in the Central Plant Area, and the northern
extent of the North Marsh Area where contamination had been found to a
depth of 70 feet. RES contends that this is a deeper portion of the
water table zone. RES must show that this is not actually an extension
of the shallow artesian zone. RES must also define the vertical extent
of contamination; 70 feet is only the depth of the deepest well in the
area. Earth resistivity profiles suggest highly mineralized water may
exist to depths of 100 feet. Values obtained using a 100 feet electrode
-------
-76-
spacing are very low (40-100 Ohm-feet) around the L-series lagoons and
the Central Plant Area. Resistivity information should be thoroughly
integrated with geologic interpretations.
Capping and stabilization of waste in the Basin Closure Area was instituted
to permanently reduce leachate seeping into the ground water. While an
immediate amelioration of water quality is not expected, improvement in
ground water quality over time should be observed. Specific well locations
should be considered to monitor ground water flow beneath the Basin Closure
Area. These locations would also be part of an overall sampling program.
In order to adequately monitor the area, deeper wells must be installed
and the integrity of existing ones must be checked. Neutron probes,
already part of RES' original plan for Basin Closure, should be used to
determine the moisture content below the cap. Care must be taken in the
interpretation, however, as the variable chemistry of the waste consti-
tuents may affect the results. These are all tools to assess the effec-
tiveness of Basin Closure. They should be incorporated in a plan which
describes how RES will determine whether Basin Closure procedures are
adequate to mitigate ground water contamination.
-------
-77-
7. References
In addition to Quarterly and Annual Ground Water Reports, Aquifer and
Contamination Evaluation Reports by RES' consultants, Geraghty & Miller,
and State and Federal Inspection Reports, the following is a list of
references used in this evaluation:
Bauersfeld, W.R., Moshinsky, E.W., Pustay, E.A., and Schaefer, F.L., 1985, Water
Resources Data, New Jersey Water Year 1984 Volume 2, Delaware River Basin
And Tributaries to Delaware Bay: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report
NJ-84-2.
Fusillo, T.V., Hochreiter, J.J., and Lord, D.G., 1984, Water-Quality Data for
the Potomac-Magothy Aquifer System in Southwestern New Jersey 1923-83:
U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 84-737.
Gill, H.E., and Farlekas, G.M., 1976, Geohydrologic Maps of the Potomac-Magothy
Aquifer System in the New Jersey Coastal Plain: U.S. Geological Survey
Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-557.
Hardt, W.F., 1963, Public Water Supplies in Gloucester County, New Jersey.:
U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Circular No.9.
Johnson, D.W., 1931, Stream Sculpture of the Atlantic Slope: New York,
Hafner Publishing.
Luzier, J.E., 1980, Digital Simulation and Projection of Head Changes in the
Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, Coastal Plain, New Jersey: U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 80-11.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 1983, Environmental Assessmen
of the Rollins Environmental Services (RES) NJ Hazardous Waste Management
Facility, Logan Township, New Jersey: Trenton.
Olmstead, F.H., Parker, G.G., Heighton, W.B., Perlmutter, N.M., and Cushman,
R.V., 1959, Ground-Water Resources of the Delaware River Service Area, vn_
U.S. Geological Survey, Delaware River Basin Report, Volume VII,
Appendix N, 1960.
Owens, J.P., and Sohl , N.F., 1969, Shelf and Deltaic Paleoenvironments in the
Cretaceous-Tertiary Formations of the New Jersey Coastal Plain, jij^
Subitsky, Seymour, ed., Geology of Selected Areas in New Jersey and
East Pennsylvannia and Guidebook of Excursions: Geological Society of
America, November, 1969.
Parker, G.G., Hely, A.G., Heighton, W.B., and Olmstead, F.H., 1964, Water
Resources of the Delaware River Basin: U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 381.
-------
-78-
Richards, H.G., Olmsted, F.H., and Ruhle, J.L., 1962, Generalized Structural
Contour Maps of the New Jersey Coastal Plain: New Jersey Geological
Survey Geological Report Series No.4.
Schaefer, F.L., 1983, Distribution of Chloride Concentrations in the Principal
Aquifers of the New Jersey Coastal Plain 1977-81: U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Resources Investigations Report 83-4061.
Volwinkel, E.F., and Foster, U.K., 1981, Hydrogeologic Conditions in the
Coastal Plain of New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey, Open File
Report 81-405.
Widmer, K., 1964, The Geology and Geography of New Jersey: The New Jersey
Historical Series Volume 19: New Jersey, D. Van Nostrand Company.
Zapezca, O.S., 1984, Hydrogeologic Framework of the New Jersey Coastal Plain:
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 84-730.
-------
»
-79-
E. Review of RES' Ground Water Sampling and Analysis Plan
The sampling and analysis plan titled "Groundwater Sampling Protocol
dated January 1987, was reviewed to determine compliance with 40 CFR §
265.92 and the Administrative Consent Order administered by NJDEP. The
following inadequacies exist and should be corrected in a revised
sampling and analysis plan:
Safety
The plan should provide a provision for air monitoring above the well
heads in order to determine the potential for fire, explosion, and/or
toxic effects on the workers. This segment should include the type of
air monitoring device (i.e., OVA, HNU, detection tubes, explosimeter,
etc.), a detailed description of the calibration procedures, and
procedures for its use in the field.
Protective gloves should be worn when performing ground water monitoring
and sampling activities (i.e., nitrile, viton, neoprene).
Field Measurements
The present Sampling and Analysis Plan uses a chart of total measurements
taken at the time of well installation. The plan should contain a
provision for measuring total depth of each well. This measurement can
be used to check the structural integrity of the well (i.e., whether or
not the well has silted in).
A permanent and easily identified reference mark from which water level
and total depth measurements are taken should be installed on each well.
The reference points should be established by a licensed surveyor.
Duplicate water level measurements on every fifth well should be taken
to check accuracy of measurements.
The plan does not contain provisions for the detection and sampling of
immiscible contaminants (floaters and sinkers) in the groundwater.
The plan should specify in detail, the device as well as the construction
material and procedures for detecting, measuring, and sampling both
light and heavy phases.
The plan should provide identification by ID # of all field instruments
in order to verify calibration procedures.
Backup equipment should be available if equipment malfunctions. All
in-situ parameters should be measured immediately upon sampling. It
is not acceptable to bring the sample back to an in-house laboratory
in order to perform the analysis.
-------
-80-
Calibration standards should be dated (i.e. pH buffers, specific conductivity
standards). They all have specified shelf lives.
Purge Methods
In the decontamination procedure of the centrifugal pump, the plan should
include a procedure for the cleaning of the outside of the intake line
which comes in direct contact with the water being removed.
There are no provisions in the plan on the use and construction material
of the hand pump used by RES. Details need to be provided.
During purging of the well, in-situ parameters of the purged water should
be used to measure purging efficiency and to ensure that all stagnant
water in the well has been replaced by fresh formation water.
Purged water from all the wells sampled must be collected for proper
disposal. The disposal procedures should be specified in detail.
Recordkeeping
All field and laboratory measurements should be recorded in a numbered and
bound notebook with non-soluble ink. This includes measurements recorded
on 'Water Sampling Logs'.
The Water Sampling Logs should be expanded to include the following
information: condition of the well (i.e., rust present, bent casing,
label missing, etc.), air monitoring device readings, sample character-
istics (i.e., odor, color, turbidity, presence of non-aqueous liquids,
etc.) and sampling time (begin/end).
Sampling
In wells using dedicated submersibles, sufficient time must be allowed
for ground water to stabilize prior to sampling. Pumps cause volatil-
ization and produce pressure differentials which result in variability in
the analysis of pH, specific conductivity, metals and volatile organics.
Sampling utilizing an in-line tap on the submersible should be eliminated
and replaced with sampling by bottom loading stainless steel or teflon
bailers.
Filtering for dissolved metals should be specified in the plan as being
performed immediately after sampling.
Filtering procedures for dissolved metals should be expanded to include
cleaning apparatus with 10% HN03 solution and D.I. water prior to
sample filtration.
-------
-81-
Sample containers should be labeled to identify if preservations have
been added to avoid overfilling. Preservation of the sample should be
verified with pH paper to see if the required amount of preservative
has been added.
The plan lists the order of preferred, sample collection for various
parameters. TOX and TOC should be moved up to numbers four and five,
respectively, since they typically contain volatile components.
The plan describes what EPA considers to be an inadequate cleaning
procedure for sampling equipment. The following should be done in the
order detailed below:
Wash and brush with hot tap water and nonphosphate detergent; rinse with
tap water, 10% nitric acid, tap water, methanol , hexane, deionized water
(demonstrated analyte free); air dry; wrap in aluminum foil, shiny side
out. All solvents, including acids, must be reagent grade.
For those sampling events where only organic parameters are being analyzed,
the nitric acid rinse can be skipped. If only metals are being analyzed
the methanol and hexane rinses can be skipped.
The plan needs to describe cleaning procedures for sample containers as
well as laboratory glassware. For samples analyzed for metals, the
following should be done, in the order detailed below, for containers
and glassware:
Uash with hot tap water and nonphosphate detergent; rinse with 1.1
nitric acid, tap water, 1:1 hydrochloric acid, tap water, deionized
water (demonstrated analyte free). All acids must be reagent grade.
For samples analyzed for organics the following should be done, in the
order detailed below, for sample containers as well as laboratory
glassware:
Wash with hot tap water and nonphosphate detergent; rinse with tap
water, methanol, hexane, deionized water (demonstrated analyte free).
All solvents must be reagent grade. All glassware (sample or laboratory)
for volatiles must be muffled at 105°C for a minimum of one hour.
All sample containers and laboratory glassware must be sealed and stored
in a clean environment. The cleanliness of each batch of precleaned
items must be verified by laboratory analysis. The procedures should be
detailed in the plan.
Any specialized cleaning, eg., TOX containers muffled at 400°C, should be
detailed.
-------
-82-
The use of trip blanks needs to be detailed. One trip blank per day of
sampling, or every twenty samples, whichever is more frequent, should be
used. A trip blank only needs to be used if samples are being taken and
analyzed for volatiles, including TOX and TOC. A trip blank only needs
to be analyzed for those volatiles being sampled for at a site.
A trip blank is defined as a sample container that is filled with demon-
strated analyte free water; transported to the site and handled like a
sample without opening the container; and returned to the laboratory for
analysis.
Chain of Custody Procedures/ Packaging and Shipping
The plan describes chain of custody procedures for analysis of samples by
the on-site RES laboratory. However, it does not provide any information
about procedures for samples shipped to off-site contractor laboratories.
Such information such as use of sample seals and chain of custody forms
should be addressed in detail in the plan.
Include a copy of the chain of custody seal and form as an attachment to
the plan.
A section on sample packaging and shipment (as per DOT regulations) to an
outside laboratory should be incorporated.
Well Construction
On a number of wells (PVC material construction) the well caps could only
be removed with considerable effort, or not at all, preventing the taking
of water level measurements and/or sampling. It is recommended that
holes be punched in the caps or gas vents be installed to release air
pressure from built up gas which may become trapped, providing easy
removal of the cap.
On a number of wells (most notably the MA-11 series) no concrete collars
were seen and water was visibly present between the well casing and outer
protective casing. In some cases, due to the difficulty in removing the
well cap, it was possible to physically move the well by lifting it.
These observations lead us to question the structural integrity of the
well construction, in particular, the annular seal which prevents the
migration of contaminants to the sampling zone from the surface or interm-
ediate zones. These problems question the monitoring well program's
ability to detect contamination from discrete zones (shallow, intermediate,
and deep).
Protective bumpers should be installed on all on-site wells where daily
activity could damage the well (i.e., Well 13 - bent casing).
-------
-83-
Permanent labels, protective casings, and locks should be installed on
all monitoring wells.
RES should implement a monitoring well inspection program. This program
should incorporate a log of information such as: casing condition, labels
installed, locks installed, etc.
Analytical Methods and Associated Quality Control
As a general comment, the plan, including the document titled "Quality
Assurance Program" dated March 10, 1986, fails to provide adequate details
of the quality control that is specific to ground water monitoring analyses,
Additionally, important details of certain analytical methodology are
missing. Most of the comments below focus on the inadequacies of actual
practice observed by us or explained to us. Most of the problems could
not be identified by reviewing the plan. All problems regarding actual
practice and lack of detail need to be corrected.
Both the analytical methodology and associated quality control used for
total organic hydrocarbon (TOX) analysis are inadequate. Additionally,
the details of actual quality control practice are lacking and the analy-
tical methodology described for TOX analysis does not reflect actual
practice.
The methodology being used can miss entire groups of halogenated compounds
and result in significantly lower values and higher detection limits than
the method EPA considers as appropriate for TOX determination, Method
9020 of EPA's SW-846. Also, the level of quality control being practiced
does not provide adequate confidence in the reliability of the data for
the compounds that are determined by the methodology being used. (See
the Laboratory Audit Section of the report for further details on this
matter.)
For all ground water monitoring parameters, the plan needs to provide
detection limits and their method of determination. Simply referencing
EPA analytical methods is not sufficient.
-------
-84-
F. Audit of Currently Used Laboratories
As part of the HWGWTF's investigation of RES, an audit was performed by
EPA Region II on April 15, 1987, of the RES Laboratory located in Bridge-
port, New Jersey. Part of this audit focused on those problems identified
in an NODE? audit, pursuant to the Regulations Governing Laboratory
Certification and Standards of Performance, N.J.A.C. (7:18), performed
on January 13, 1987. These regulations currently do not directly govern
analytical work performed under RCRA. However, that audit did cover
RCRA parameters in the matrix of interest that are analyzed under other
programs. This audit focused on the RCRA analytical work not covered in
the NJDEP audit.
Environmental Testing and Certification Corporation (ETC), located in
Edision, New Jersey has been contracted by RES to perform analyses of
well samples for RCRA's "Appendix IX" parameters. ETC was audited in July,
1985, by the National Enforcement Investigation Center (NEIC) and in April,
1986, by the Quality Assurance Office of EPA, Region V. The findings as
they pertain to this investigation are presented below.
It should be noted that the selection of ground water monitoring parameters
being sampled for and analyzed by RES is based on an NJDEP Administrative
Consent Order. The RES parameters are: pH, total dissolved solids
total organic carbon, nitrate, phenol, arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
copper, zinc, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls and total halogenated
hydrocarbons (TOX).
1. RES Laboratory
Several inadequacies were found involving the use of inappropriate
analytical methodology for analyses of TOX and the failure to follow
the quality control procedures contained in the subject analytical
methodology referenced for TOX analysis in RES' Ground Water Sampling
Protocol. Additionally, the analytical methodology itself that is
used by RES differs from that which is referenced in RES' protocol.
The details regarding these matters are highlighted below.
RES' Ground Water Sampling Protocol references EPA Methods 601 and 608,
40 CFR 136, for TOX analysis. The appropriate method for TOX analysis
is Method 9020 form EPA's Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (SW-846).
Method 9020 is a method involving carbon adsorption with a microcoulometric
titration detector. This method determines all organic halides con-
taining chlorine, bromine, and iodine that are adsorbed by granular
activated carbon under the conditions of the method.
Method 601, as prescribed in 40 CFR 136, involves purge and trap gas
chromatography with a halide-specific detector. It determines 29 purge-
able aliphatic halocarbons. The RES laboratory uses a flame ionization
detector. The flame detector can determine a wider range of compounds,
but is less sensitive than a halide specific detector. Consequently,
low levels (ugs/1 range) of individual halocarbons can be missed with
the flame detector.
-------
-85-
Method 608, as precribed in 40 CFR 136, involves methylene chloride
extraction, gas chromatography, and an electron capture detector. It
determines certain organochlorine pesticides and PCBs. The RES laboratory
uses methylene chloride extraction, gas chromatography, and a Hall detector.
The use of a Hall rather than electron capture detector can determine a
wider range of non-purgeable halocarbons. However, the Hall is less
sensitive than an electron capture detector. Additionally, certain
groups of compounds, such as the chlorophenols, are missed using the 608
extraction procedure.
RES quantitates TOX using total peak areas. Detection limits for individual
compounds are based solely on the linear regression intercept of the halo-
carbon standards. For purgeables the lowest standard used is 270 ug/1 and
for nonpurgeables it is 50 ug/1. Additionally, a 1 mg/1 detection limit
is used when reporting actual TOX, which is based solely on the limit re-
ported by the laboratory originally doing TOX for RES. Concentrations
determined that are less than 1 mg/1 are reported as "less that 1 mg/1".
It should be noted that until 1984, SR Analytical in Cherry Hill, New Jersey,
was contracted by RES for TOX analyses and apparently used the analytical
methodology currently being used by RES.
Regarding quality control procedures, many of those prescribed in EPA
Methods 601 and 608 are not being used by RES. Regarding both Methods
601 and 608, the following inadequacies exist:
a. External QC check samples are not being used.
b. Calibration check standards are allowed to be out by as much as 20%
without action being taken. The action limit prescribed in Methods
601 and 608 is 10%. For Method 601, RES has been out by as much as
20%; for Method 608 RES has been out by more than 10%.
c. No checks are made on the validity of standards being used.
d. Laboratory duplicates are not used; a form of field duplicates
are used.
e. Surrogates are not used.
f. Control charts for precision and accuracy are formulated based
on TOX rather than on individual methods and parameters.
-------
-86-
g. Data validation procedures are not well established in
terms of the appropriate control charts and other quality
control measures for determining the validity of data based
on specific criteria.
Regarding Method 608, the following additional inadequacies exist:
a. An initial demonstration of capability to perform the method
was not performed.
b. A holding time of 14 days for sample extraction is typically
being used rather than the 7 days required by 40 CFR 136.
Regarding good laboratory practices in general , written standard operating
procedures do not exist for any analysis performed as part of RES' ground
water monitoring program.
Additionally, systems audits are not performed by RES on any of the TOX
or PCB analytical work performed as part of the RES ground water monitoring
program.
Regarding problems identified by NJDEP during their January 1987 audit,
all have been corrected with the following exceptions:
a. A log book for documenting sample digestions has been
established, but does not yet include information on pH checks.
b. ICAP interference check samples have been ordered, but have
not yet been received.
2. Environmental Testing and Certification Corporation (ETC) Laboratory
The audit by NEIC in July, 1985, and again by the Quality Assurance
Office of EPA, Region V in April, 1986, revealed several inadequacies.
Most of the inadequacies do not apply to the parameters of interest
in this RES investigation. However, those few difficiencies pertinent
to this investigation were corrected prior to the Task Force study.
-------
-87-
G. Ground Water Sampling Activities at RES
On February 9-19, 1987, the Ground Water Task Force sampled for Appendix IX
constituents at Rollins Environmental Services (RES), Bridgeport, New
Jersey, in order to determine if the hazardous waste disposal, storage,
and treatment activities conducted at this site and regulated by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) have impacted the quality
of ground water underlying this facility. The field sampling participants
were as follows:
EPA Region II- ESP
Louis DiGuardia, Geologist
Joseph Cosentino, Environmental Scientist
EPA Sampling Contractor - Alliance, Inc.
Richard DeLuca
David Billo
Mark Lewis
William Naughton
Rollins Environmental Services (RES)
Mark Owens
Thomas Smith
The following EPA contractor laboratories were utilized by the Task Force:
Centec Analytical
2160 Industrial Drive
Salem, Virginia 24153
for total metals, dissolved metals, cyanide, POC, POX, TOC, TOX, phenols,
anions, sulfides, carbonates and bicarbonates.
EMS I
4765 Calle Quetzal
Camavilla, CA 93010
for VOA, BNA, Pesticide/PCB, and Herbicides.
Compu Chem Laboratories
3308 Chapel Hill/Nelson Highway
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
for Dioxins.
-------
-88-
The sampling procedures followed during the inspection were those described
in the Work/QA Sampling Plan for the Ground Water Task Force Inspection
Plan at RES. Safety equipment, utilized by all members of the Task Force,
consisted of surgical gloves, neoprene gloves, saranac tyvek, safety
boots/ shoes, disposable booties, protective coveralls, cartridge re-
spirators and SCBAs. All Task Force activities at RES were conducted by
the Task Force contractor, Alliance, Inc. RES elected to receive splits
of all samples collected by the Task Force. The order of sample collection
and the preservation methods and parameters for which the samples were
analyzed are summarized in Tables A-l and A-2.
During the inspection, samples were collected from 21 ground water monitoring
and abatement wells. Of these wells, 18 were screened in the water table
zone and 3 were screened in the shallow artesian zone. Table A-3 is a
list of well specifications for RES' ground water monitoring wells supplied
by their consultant, Geraghty & Miller.
Before and after sampling activities, full rounds of water level measurements
were taken (from wells which were sampled as well as other wells at the
site) with a water level indicator/sounder to the top of the PVC casing,
using the measuring point from which RES makes its routine ground water
measurements (Table A-4). The water level indicator was decontaminated
between wells with isoproponal and deionized water and air dried. Duplicate
water level measurements were taken at a representative number of wells
to check measurement procedures. Differences between measurements ranged
from 0.0 to 0.11 ft. and were considered to be within an acceptable
range (Table A-5).
After the initial round of water level measurements was taken, a water
level measurement was taken at each well that was sampled (Table A-6).
Prior to and throughout sampling activities, the air space above and around
the well head was measured with air monitoring equipment in order to determine
the need for respiratory protection. These instruments included an organic
vapor analyzer (OVA), a photoionization detector (HNU), and a geiger counter.
Table A-7 presents the results of air monitoring obtained at each well.
An interface probe was used to determine the presence of immiscible layers.
Purging and sampling of Wells AV-2, S, MA-3S, 17, MW-4A, W27, W24, W29,
MA-IS, and L-2 was performed using dedicated bottom loading teflon bailers.
For Wells 29, 25 and 21A, purging was performed using the facility's
dedicated submersible pumps with sampling performed using bottom loading
teflon bailers. Wells MA-9S, MW-4A, MA-8D, and MA-11D were purged and
sampled using dedicated one-inch bottom loading stainless steel bailers.
For wells screened in the shallow artesian zone (DP-1, DP-2 and DP-5), a
portable stainless steel submersible pump (Label SP-2) supplied by
Alliance was utilized. Sampling was performed using a bottom loading
teflon bailer.
The portable submersible pump (SP-2) utilized by the Task Force was constructed
of stainless steel with a PVC coated electrical cable and discharge line.
-------
-89-
Decontamination between wells consisted of a tap water non-phosphate
detergent wash and triple deionized water rinse of the internal system,
with a similar cleaning followed by an acetone and hexane rinse and air
drying for the outside pump, discharge line, and electrical cable. All
decontamination and purge water was collected by RES in 55-gallon drums
for treatment in their unit treatment facility. The bottom loading teflon
and stainless steel bailers were cleaned and rinsed prior to entering
the field. This procedure consisted of a thorough hot water and non-
phosphate detergent wash followed by successive rinses with deionized
water, acetone and hexane. After being air dried, the bailers were
wrapped in aluminum foil (treated side out). Cleaning procedures were
verified by taking equipment blanks for each batch cleaning of bailers
and the SP-2 submersible pump.
In-situ measurements were taken for pH, specific conductivity, and temperature
and are summarized in Table A-8. Instrument calibration was performed
before the start of field activities and prior to the taking of field
measurements. Samples were preserved upon completion of sampling at
each location. The samples for dissolved metals were returned to a RES
in-house laboratory for filtering by EPA personnel. The following
procedure was employed: the sample was pre-filtered with a 5.0 urn glass
fiber filter followed by filtering with a .45 urn filter and then preserved
with HNCh. Cleaning of the apparatus consisted of a deionized water
rinse followed by nitric acid rinse and final deionized water rinse.
Upon completion of daily sampling activities, the samples were packaged
in accordance with applicable Department of Transportation (DOT) regula-
tions for shipment to the appropriate EPA contractor laboratories. RES
was issued a receipt for all samples collected by the Task Force and
returned it with a signature from an authorized representative.
-------
-90-
H. Task Force Sampling Data Analysis
The data for ground water samples taken at RES Ground Water Task Force
between the period February 9-19, 1987, are presented in Appendix A, Table
A-9 through A-14. Twenty-one field samples plus nine volatile sample
blanks (001, and 100 through 107) were collected at the facility. The
samples included seven field blanks (101, 100, 102, 103, 105, 106, and
107), three equipment blanks (104, MQA-738, and MQB-001), a trip blank
(MQB-002), two pairs of duplicate samples (Well MW-4A, samples MQA-736/
MQB-736 and MQA-743/MQB-743 and Well 29, samples MQA-739 and MQB-011),
and twenty-one other field samples. Field measurements for pH, specific
conductivity, temperature and turbidity are presented in Table A-8.
All data for inorganic and indicator parameters as well as metals (total
and dissolved) are tabulated in Tables A-9, A-10 and A-ll, respectively.
For organics, only those compounds which were detected in at least one
of the wells are listed. Data for organic analyses are presented in
Table A-12 for volatiles and Table A-13 for semi-volatiles. The results
of field and equipment blanks can be found in the raw data packages from
the respective laboratories. Data qualifiers for Tables A-9 through
A-14 are presented in a key in front of Table A-9. An evaluation of
data quality control is attached in Appendix B.
1. Inorganic and Indicator Parameters
All carbonate, bicarbonate, nitrate, and nitrite sample results were
rejected since the laboratory exceeded sample holding times. Because of
total organic halogen (TOX) contamination found in an equipment and field
blank, only TOX results ten times the level of contamination or greater
were considered acceptable for data presentation. Sulfide values were
rejected due to blank contamination.
In general, the highest levels of indicator parameters were found in
samples from Wells MA-IS, 29, MA-2D, W-24, and 17. The highest concen-
tration of TOX were found in MA-IS (21,300 ug/1), 29 (5,380 ug/1), MA-2D
(4,100 ug/1) and 17 (574 ug/1). Purgeable organic halogens (POX) concen-
trations generally correlated with TOX values with the exception of
MA-2D, where POX was found to be 11,000 ug/1 and TOX to be 4,100 ug/1.
Purgeable organic carbon (POC) and total organic carbon (TOC) values
ranged from 42 ug/1 to 28,000 ug/1, and 1,700 ug/1 to 267,000 ug/1
respectively. Total phenol concentrations were present in the highest
concentrations in Wells MA-IS (5,000 ug/1), 29 (888 ug/1), and MA-2D
(888 ug/1).
Among the inorganic constituents analyzed, bromide was found to be
present in the highest concentration in 21A (30 mg/1). Chloride and
sulfate were present at the highest concentrations in Well 25 with
values of 2,250 mg/1 and 2,700 mg/1, respectively. Fluoride was found
-------
-91-
in the highest concentration in Well MA-IS at a value of 16 mg/1. Table
3 summarizes the range of concentrations of inorganic and indicator
parameters which were found in ground water samples collected by the Task
Force at RES. Result of inorganic and indicator parameter analyses from
samples obtained from individual wells are presented in Appendix A,
Table A-9.
Table 3 - Inorganic and Indicator Parameter Analyses
Parameter
Bromide
Chloride
Fl uoride
Sulfate
Number of Wells
Constituent Present
6
23
10
22
Range of Concentrations
Present (mg/1 )
2.3 - 30
21 - 2250
1 - 16
12 - 2700
Parameter
POC
TOC
Phenols, totals
POX
TOX
Number of Wells
Constituent Present
23
21
3
12
4
Range of Concentrations
Present (ug/1)
42 - 28000
1700 - 267000
888 - 5000
6 - 11000
574 - 21300
-------
-92-
2. Metals Analyses Results
Reported detection limits are contract required detection limits (CRDL)
or lower for all metals. Dissolved arsenic data for samples MQA-739 and
MQA-741, total cadmium samples for MQB-008, MQB-010, MQB-025, and total
antimony for MQA-774 were rejected due to correlation coefficents for the
method of standard addition (MSA) being below data quality objectives.
Dissolved and total mercury data for samples MQB-012, MQB-013, MQB-014
and MQB-015 were rejected due to failure in obtaining maxtrix spike
recoveries because of unknown salt interferences. Dissolved selenium
data for samples MQB-006 and MQB012 were rejected due to duplicate injec-
tion precision being above DQO. Total cyanide data for samples MQB-001
and MQB-010 were rejected due to high sulfide interference in the matrix
spike recovery. Table 4 summarizes the range of concentrations of
Appendix IX metals (total and dissolved) which were found in the ground
water samples collected by the Task Force at RES. The results of metal
analyses from samples obtained from individual wells are presented in
Appendix A, Tables A-10 and A-ll.
Table 4 - Appendix IX Metals (Total and Dissolved)
Metal
Constituent
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl! ium
Cadmium
Cal ci urn
Chromi urn
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sodi urn
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
TOTAL
Number of Wei 1 s
Constituent
Present
22
13
23
8
6
23
15
10
20
23
22
23
23
7
10
23
23
15
23
3
Range of
Concentrations
(ug/1)
190 - 360000
7.8 - 472
32 - 1040
2-25
.6 - 7.5
6390 - 451000
18 - 7880
20 - 122
12 - 4890
386 - 438000
4.1 - 192
2100 - 256000
69 - 2140
.3 - 3.7
26 - 184
2320 - 48300
3070 - 1710000
17 - 1100
19 - 1350
40 - 80
DISSOLVED
Number of Wells
Constituent
Present
16
5
23
1
4
23
ND
3
6
21
6
23
23
ND
1
23
23
4
21
NA
Range of
Concentrations
(ug/1)
44 - 820
7.5 - 264
31 - 121
3
1.0 - 6.9
7600 - 515000
ND
21 - 35
8-74
27 - 151000
2.4 - 40
2380 - 299000
35 - 2440
ND
150
2600 - 54400
3020 - 1570000
14 - 311
16 - 162
NA
ND - Not Detected
NA - Not Analyzed
-------
-93-
a. The following metals results were noted in the water table zone:
Total Metals
The highest concentrations for aluminum, barium, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, potassium,
sodium, vanadium and zinc were found in Wells MW-4A and 17.
Arsenic, calcium and magnesium were present in the highest concentrations
in Well 25.
Cyanide was present in the highest concentrations in Wells MW-4A and 25.
Dissolved Metals
Arsenic, calcium, magnesium, nickel, potassium and vanadium were present
in the highest concentrations in MA-2D and 25.
Barium, iron, and manganese were present in the highest concentrations
in MA-IS.
Beryllium was present in the highest concentration in MA-11D.
Cadmium was present in the highest concentration in W-29.
Cobalt and zinc were present in the highest concentrations in MA-8D.
Lead was present in the highest concentration in MA-2S.
b. The following metals were noted in the shallow artesian zone:
Total Metals
Aluminum, calcium, cobalt, copper, magnesium, potassium, and zinc were
present in the highest concentrations in DP-5.
Iron, lead, manganese, and sodium were present in the highest
concentrations in DP-1.
Barium and cadmium were present in the highest concentrations in DP-2.
Dissolved Metals
Aluminum, calcium, cobalt, copper, lead, magnesium, potassium, and zinc
were present in the highest concentrations in DP-5.
Iron, manganese, and sodium were present in the highest concentrations
in DP-1.
Barium and cadmium were present in the highest concentrations in DP-2.
-------
-94-
3. Organic Analyses Results
All pesticide and herbicide analyses did not pass QA/QC review and were
rejected. The analytical laboratories exceeded the volatile holding
times of seven days for all volatile samples; therefore, all results
from volatile samples will be considered qualitative. Acetone contamination
was found in sampling blanks 001, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107,
MQA-738, MQB-001 and 002. All acetone results were rejected. Methylene
chloride contamination was found in sampling blanks 103, 104, MQA-738,
MQB-001 and 002. All methylene chloride results were rejected. Laboratory
method blanks MB-2 and MB-4 contained bis(2 -ethyl hexyl) phthalate contam-
ination at concentrations of 3 and 4 ug/1. All positive bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate data were rejected. Table 5 summarizes the occurrence and range
of Appendix IX organic constituents found in the ground water samples
collected by the Task Force at RES. Results of organic analyses from
samples obtained individual wells are presented in Appendix A, Tables A-12
and A-13.
Table 5 - Volatile Constituents
Parameter
(ug/1)
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon DiSulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chi oroform
1,1 - Dichloroethane
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,2 - Dichloropropane
Ethyl benzene
2- Hexanone
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Trans - 1,2 - Dichloroethene
Toluene
Total Xylene
Vinyl Chloride
1,2 Dibromoethane
Number
of Wells
Consti tuent
Present
8
2
1
1
6
6
7
6
1
6
1
5
5
5
7
8
4
7
1
Range of
Concentrations
Present
7 - 3100
41 - 1300
990
7
7 - 360
2 - 700
2 - 510
20 - 300
6
1 - 720
1100
2-41
94 - 230
1 - 860
3 - 1600
2 - 10000
9 - 2800
1 - 1000
11
-------
-95-
Table 5 (cont.) - Semi-volatile Constituents
Parameter
ug/1
Acenaphthene
Benzoic Acid
Bis(2-chloroethyl ) Ether
2 - Chlorophenol
4 - Chloroanil ine
1,2 - Dichlorobenzene
1,3 - Dichlorobenzene
1,4 - Dichlorobenzene
2,4 - Dichlorophenol
2,4 - Dimethyl phenol
2 - Methyl phenol
4 - Methyl phenol
2 - Methyl naphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenol
Phosphorictriamide, Hexamethyl
1,2,4 - Trichlorobenzene
Acetophenone
Anil ine
2 - Hexanone
4 - Methyl - 2 - Pentanone
Pyridine
0 - Toluidine
Number of Wells
Constituent
Present
1
1
5
1
3
4
3
3
3
2
1
3
2
3
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
Range of
Concentrations
Present
1
340
1 - 200
10
2000 - 27000
2 - 93
4 - 5
8-31
47 - 170
180 - 970
11
34 - 2100
47 - 100
110 - 1000
1 - 380
13
6
410
150 - 1700
77
330
200
960 - 2700
-------
-96-
a. The following organic results are noted in the water table zone:
In general , the highest concentrations of hazardous organic constituents
were found in the samples from monitoring wells MA-IS, 29, MA-2D, 17
and 24. Well MA-IS contained the highest levels of the following
compounds:
0 benzene
0 2-butanone
0 chlorobenzene
0 chloroform
o
1,1 - dichloroethane
0 1,2 - dichloroethane
0 ethyl benzene
0 2- hexanane
0 1,1,1 - trichloroethane
0 trans - 1,2 Dichloroethene
0 toluene
0 total xylene
3100 ug/1
1300 ug/g
360 ug/
ug/1
ug/1
700
512
300
720
ug/1
ug/1
1100 ug/1
860 ug/1
1600 ug/1
1000 ug/1
2800 ug/1
vinyl chloride
4-chloroaniline
1,2 dichlorobenzene
1,4 dichlorobenzene
2,4 dimethyl phenol
4-methylphenol
2-methylnapthalene
naphthalene
aniline
4 methyl-2-pentanone
pyridine
0-toluidine
1000 ug/1
27000 ug/1
93 ug/1
31 ug/1
970 ug/1
2100 ug/1
100 ug/1
1000 ug/1
1700 ug/1
330 ug/1
200 ug/1
2700 ug/1
Well 29 contained the highest levels of:
0 trichloroethene (230 ug/1),
0 benzoic acid (340 ug/1),
0 bis (2-chloroethyl) ether (200
0 2 chlorophenol (10 ug/1),
0 2,4 dichlorophenol (170 ug/1),
0 phosphorictriamide, hexamethyl
concentrations of:
chlorobenzene 69 ug/1
chloroform 440 ug/1
1,1 - dichloroethane 45 ug/1
1,2 dichloroethane 120 ug/1
tetrachloroethane 27 ug/1
1,1,1 - trichloroethane 330 ug/1
trans - 1,2 dichloroethen 51 ug/1
toluene 570 ug/1
total xylene 190 ug/1
vinyl chloride 35 ug/1
ug/1)
(13 ug/1), and the second highest
4-chloroaniline
1,2 dichlorobenzene
1,3 dichlorobenzene
2,4 dimethyl phenol
4-methylphenol
2-methylnaphtha! ene
naphthalene
phenol
aniline
0-toluidine
Well MA-2D contained the highest levels of:
carbon disulfide
2- methyl phenol
phenol
990 ug/1
11 ug/1
380 ug/1
2000
38
4
180
160
47
140
370
150
960
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
-------
-97-
Well 24 presented the highest level of carbon tetrachloride (7 ug/1).
Well 17 contained the highest concentration of:
0 tetrachloroethene 41 ug/1 and
1,2,4 - trichlorobenzene 6 ug/1
1,2 Dibromoethane was present in the highest concentration in well MA-8D,
2-hexanone in MW-4A (77 ug/1) and 1,3 dichlorobenzene in MW-27 (5 ug/1).
b. The following organic results are noted in the shallow artesian zone:
Hazardous organic constituents were detected only in samples from
Well DP-5, located at the southeastern corner of RES. The sample
from DP-5 indicated concentrations of:
0 benzene 7 ug/1
0 carbon tetrachloride 1 ug/1
0 chloroform 5 ug/1
0 1,1 - dichloroethane 10 ug/1
0 1,2-dichloroethane 180 ug/1
0 tetrachloroethene 2 ug/1
0 trichloroethene 20 ug/1
0 trans-l,2-dichloroethene 4 ug/1
0 vinyl chloride 8 ug/1
0 bis(2-chloroethyl)ether 1 ug/1
-------
-98-
4. Dioxin/Furans Analyses Results
Table 6 summarizes the results of the dioxin/furans analyses on ground
water samples obtained by the Task Force at RES. The only detected
concentrations were found in the water table zone from Well MW-4A
(sample # MQA-736). Duplicate analysis MW-4A DUP (sample # MQA-743),
showed similar concentrations.
Table 6 - Dioxin/Furan Results
Parameter
(parts per trillion)
TCDD
PeCDD
HxCDD
HpCDD
OCDD
TCDF
PeCDF
HxCDF
HpCDF
OCDF
MW-4A
MQA-736
U
U
U
U
U
1.54
U
3.86
20.1
17.3
MW-4A(DUP)
MQA-743
U
U
U
U
6.26
1.87
3.34
11.9
26.5
19.5
-------
-99-
I. Compliance Evaluation Inspection
1. Facility Description and Operations
RES is a commercial treatment storage and disposal facility situated
on a 78 acre tract in Bridgeport, Logan Township, N.J.. This facility
accepts a wide range of hazardous waste for treatment: pesticides,
halogenated aliphatic hydrocarbons, monocyclic aromatics, phthalate
esters, polycyclic aromatics, ketones, alcohols and miscellaneous
volatiles. Explosive wastes (DOT Clases A, B, and C), radioactive
wastes, and PCB wastes are not accepted at the facility. Incineration
is the only commercial operation at RES.
Currently, RES operates the incinerator under interim status regulations,
Wastes are incinerated in gaseous, liquid and solid form. Incinerator
ash, formerly landfilled on-site is now transported to secure landfills
elsewhere. Scrubber water, from the venturi scrubber system is pre-
treated in an on-site treatment system. This system consists of
Neutralization Tanks, clarifier and centrifuge. The solids generated
are transported to a secure landfill off-site. The resulting super-
natant is discharged to a series of unlined surface impoundments.
These eight L-series surface impoundments serve as a cooling system
before discharge to the Raccoon Creek. Two lined biological treatment
surface impoundments (B-206 and B-207) receive contaminated ground
water from eighteen pumping wells on-site. Basin B-206 is used for
equalization and preaeration while B-207 is used for activated sludge
treatment. The treated water effluent is pumped to the L-series
surface impoundment for ultimate discharge to Raccoon Creek. All ten
surface impoundments are RCRA regulated units From these impoundments,
water is discharged to Raccoon Creek under the terms of RES' NJPDES
Permit.
2. Hazardous Waste Storage
Drum Pad #1: This pad is located approximately fifty feet north of
tank farm #1. The pad consists of a roof-covered concrete surface
surrounded by a concrete containment sump. Steel drums as well as
fiber drums, both stacked two high, are stored in this area. The
maximum allowable quantity to be stored is 450, 55-gallon drums. This
pad area is approximately 4200 square feet. The physical inspection
revealed a small number of drums inadequately marked. In the center
rear portion of this drum pad were located several drums between
which was inadequate aisle space. Drum Pad # 2: This pad is located
Drum Pad # 2: This pad is located adjacent to the guard shack near
the main gate entrance. This pad consists of a concrete slab with
concrete curbing as containment. Only steel drums are stored in this
uncovered area. Drums are stored on pallets, stacked one high. This
pad area measures approximately 7200 square feet. The physical
inspection revealed a small number of drums inadeqautely marked. The
concrete slab had numerous small cracks throughout.
-------
-100-
The drum pad inventory for both Pad # 1 and Pad # 2 can be found in
Appendix C.
Phase # 1 Tank Farm: This consists of four steel storage tanks. This
phase was construted in 1978, following the destruction of the former
tank area by fire and explosion in 1977. Tank descriptions are as
follows:
Tank # T-301
Tank # T-302
Tank # T-303
Tank # T-304
7,000 gal.
7,000 gal.
20,000 gal
20,000 gal,
capacity - receiving
capacity - receiving
capacity - blend
capacity - blend
All four tanks are equipped with mechanical agitators and pressure relief
rupture disks. Containment provided for each tank consists of a cement
pad and cement dike approximately four feet in height.
Phase # 2 Tank Farm: This consists of three steel storage tanks and is
located south of Phase # 1 tank farm. Tank descriptions are as follows:
Tank # T-308 - 30,000 gallon capacity - storage
Tank # T-310 - 20,000 gallon capacity - thermalox storage
Tank # T-311 - 30,000 gallon capacity - storage
Tank # T-310 contains RES designated "Thermalox" aqueous waste containing
approximately 90% water. Phase # 2 tanks are also equipped with mechanical
agitators and pressure relief rupture disks. Containment provided for
these tanks consists of a cement pad and cement diking. At this time a
VC.O exists in Phase # 2 tank farm where former Tank # T-312 was located.
This tank was removed from site in 1986.
3. Other Storage Tanks
Tank # T-103: This provides 20,000 gallon capacity for the storage of
RES designated "Thermalox" material. This tank is located outside of
the two tank farm areas. There is no pipe connecting this tank and the
tank farm areas. Containment for this tank consists of a cement pad
with a cement curbing.
Tank # T-323: This is a large, 150,000 gallon capacity steel storage
tank for bulk storage of hazardous waste. It is located on the Eastern
part of the site away from the main facility. There is no piping connecting
this tank to either tank farm or the incinerator. Containment consists
of a pad and a berm constructed of clay like material.
All hazardous waste tanks are blanketed with nitrogen in order to reduce
fire hazard.
-------
-101-
4. Incinerator
The incinerator in use at RES consists of a rotary kiln and operates
under negative pressure in order to reduce fugitive emissions. Incine-
rator controls incorporate a series of automatic fuel cut-off systems
which shut down operations if any of the following conditions occur:
- Hot duct temperature falls below 2,000° F
- Loss of flame as measured by fire eye flame sensors
- Induction draft fans Axial vibration above 7 mils
- afterburner draft below 6 inches of water
- quenched gas temperature above 15 inches of water
- water flow to the saturator spray nozzels below 400 g.p.m.
- water flow to the saturator shelf below 100 g.p.m.
- water flow to the absorber below 2000 g.p.m.
- power failure
- CO concentration in the stack above 80 ppm
- oxygen concentration in the hot duct below 3%
- scrubber differential pressure below 40 inches of water
Additional control room monitoring instrumentation includes:
- scrubber effluent PH
- rotary kiln crossover duct temp
- induction draft and forced fan amperage
- target wall temperature
- loodby refractory temperature
- instrument air pressure
The physical inspection of the incinerator was conducted on February 13,
at approximately 1340 hours.
Two waste streams are generated from the incinerator operation. Kiln
ash: This is a solid removed via a metal cart. The area where the cart
is staged is a concrete pad with concrete walls. This pad slopes
downward towards the incinerator to facilitate movement of the cart
between the rotary kiln and the 30 cubic yard roll-off used for the
storage of the kiln ash. Cracks were noted in this pad. The roll-off
is located within a containment area approximately fifty feet north of
the incinerator. The containment consists of a concrete pad (with sump)
and concrete curbing. A sheet metal roof structure provides protection
from rain water entering the containers. This area is sized to contain
two roll-offs. At the time of the inspection, rain water was noticed in
this containment area.
Scrubber Sludge: This is the solid generated from the scrubber water
treatment system. Material is deposited in a 30 cubic yard dump trailer
after the final treatment process (centrifugation). This containment area
consists of a concrete pad concrete curbing and a sheet metal roof. Area
provides storage for one trailer.
-------
-102-
RES has ten surface impoundments (B-206, B-207 and 8 L-series lagoons)
which are regulated under RCRA and subject to ground water monitoring
requirements.
B-206: This is a concrete lined basin for equilization and preaeration
of contaminated ground water. The holding capacity of this basin is
approximately 475,000 gallons.
B-207: This is an asphalt lined basin for the activated sludge treatment
of contaminated water received from B-206. The holding capacity of
this basin is aproximately 240,000 gallons.
L-series lagoons: These are a series of eight (8) unlined surface
impoundments located along southwest border of the facility. These
units receive scrubber water from the on-site scrubber wastewater treatment
plant. All lagoons are interconnected to allow the water to pass from
one to another for cooling. Prior to the installation of the scrubber
water treatment system these lagoons were utilized for the settling of
particulate matter. Now they serve only for cooling and storage; however,
this water is still hazardous by definition. The clarified overflow
from the ground water treatment system is discharged to L-311. Current
regulations will require that these lagoons cease operation by November
8, 1988. The facility is replacing all the lagoons with above-ground
tanks.
5. Waste Analysis Plan
The Waste Analysis Plan in use at RES at the time of the inspection
pertains to only incoming waste streams (plan was amended on 2/19/83 to
include outgoing waste streams).
Prior to accepting any hazardous waste for transportation, storage, or
treatment, RES requires a completed waste data sheet from the generator.
This data sheet includes the following information: heating valve,
halogen content, pH, metals content, organic constituents, PCB's ash
content, flash point sulphur, and viscosity.
The initial waste evaluation is repeated at least every two years or if
the process or operation generating the waste has changed or if the
incoming waste shipment does not match the waste description or manifest.
If the generator is unable to provide the necessary data, RES will
analyze a representative sample of the waste to obtain the information.
Based on the information contained in this waste data sheet, RES' Safety
and Technical departments prepare a waste safety sheet. This is done
for every waste stream prior to acceptance. This is an internal document
which lists the chemicals in the wastestream along with information
pertinent to its handling. Other information on this waste data sheet
includes storage, treatment or incineration
-------
-103-
methods required, associated hazards, limits of compatabil ity, personnel
protective equipment required, fire protection details, reactivity and
spill response procedures. These waste safety sheets are available at
all locations where the waste stream is handled. Each waste stream is
assigned a RES designated code.
Upon arrival of the waste material at the facility and prior to unloading,
the waste is sampled and analyzed. If the waste is within the contracted
test parameters the chemist will establish a course of action for the
disposal as per the waste safety sheet. Prior to discharging liquid
waste, samples undergoe additional compatability testing to insure that
a reaction will not occur.
Additionally, all blends are checked for heating value (BID), halogens,
sulphur, metals, ash, pH, viscosity, and flashpoint. At the time of in-
spection, the waste analysis plan was not checked for compliance 40 CFR
Part 268.
6. Closure Plan
The closure plan in place at RES at the time of the inspection was not
adequate. The plan included procedures for the decontamination and removal
of a trickling filter system and two neutralization tanks. These units
are no longer on-site. The closure plan should be amended to reflect
the present day situation. As noted previously in this report, cracks
were noticed in Drum Pad # 2's concrete pad and the concrete pad under
the kiln ash cart area. A soil sampling plan which includes these areas
should be part of the closure plan. The general decontamination procedures
specified in the closure plan should include adequate information to
insure complete decontamination.
-------
-105-
APPENDIX A
Tables of Schedule of Task Force Sampling Activities,
Physical Characteristics of Ground Water Monitoring
Wells, and Task Force Sampling Data
-------
-106-
Table A-l
Outline of Ground Water Monitoring Activities Conducted by Task Force
Date Well Activity
2/9 Water level measurements taken. Equipment
preparation.
2/10 Well AV-2 purged/sampled/trip Blank
Well S purged/sampled
Well MA-3S purged/sampled
Well 29 purged/sampled/field blank
2/11 Well MA-9S purged/sampled/field blank
Well 17 purged/sampled
Well MW-4A purged/sampled/duplicate
2/12 Well MA-2D purged/sampled/matrix spike
Well MA-2S purged/sampled/field blank
25 purged/sampled
2/13 21A purged/sampled
W27 purged/sampled/Field Blank
2/16 DP-2 purged/sampled/matrix spike/field blank
MA-8D purged/sampled/equipment blank
2/17 W24 purged/sampled/equipment blank
DP-5 purged/sampled/field blank
2/18 W29 purged/sampled/field blank
MA-11D purged/sampled
MA-IS purged/sampled
2/19 DP-1 purged/sampled/field blank
L-2 purged/sampled
Water level measurements taken.
2/20 Closeout meeting with Rollins Environmental Services
-------
-107-
Table A-2
Summary of Analytical Parameters Sampled by The Task Force at RES
Analysis
Volatile Organics (VOA) Purge and Trap
Purgeable Organic Carbon (POC)
Purgeable Organic Halogens (POX)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Total Organic Halogens(TOX)
Extractable Organics
a) Acid, Base, Neutral
b) Pesticides/PCB
cj Herbicides
Dioxin/Furans
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Phenols
Cyanide
Anions
Sulfide
Bottle
Preservation
Code
40 ml VOA Vials
40 ml VOA Vials
40 ml VOA Vials
40 oz Wide Mouth Glass
1 1 iter Amber Glass
1 liter Amber Glass
1 liter Amber Glass
1 liter Plastic
1 1 iter Plastic
1 liter Amber Glass
1 liter Plastic
40 oz. Wide Mouth Glas
1 liter Plastic
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
4
6
5
Bottles
2
1
1
1
1
6
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Preservation Methods
1) Ice
2) H2S04 <2
3) HN03 <2
4) NaOH >10
5) Zinc acetate followed by NaOH>10
6) Unpreserved except for samples containing sulfides,* if so add lead acetate
until all lead sulfide has precipitated, filter out precipitate and preserve
sample with acetic acid.
* Test for sulfides with lead acetate paper wetted with acetic acid.
-------
-108-
Table~A-3 Well Construction Details for Wells at Rollins Environmental Services
(NO), Inc.. Logan Township, New Jersey. (From Geraghty & Miller)
Screened Interval
Well
No.
Permit
Number
(feet below
land surface)
(feet
relative to
mean sea level)
Height of
Measuring
Point
(feet
above
land
surface)
Elevation
of Measur-
ing Point
(feet rel-
ative to
mean sea
level)
Casing
Diameter
(inches)
Water-Table Aquifer
4a
13
14
15
16**
17
20A
20B
21a
22
23b
24
25
26
27
28
29
30S
300
31S
310
32S
320
*
F30-8
F30-9
F30-10
F30-11
F30-12
F30-14
F30-15
30-2834
30-1305
*
30-1301
30-1303
F30-21
F 30-22
F30-23
F30-24
30-7631
30-2632
30-2633
30-2634
30-2635
30-2636
18.5
8
7
12
8
11
3
15
10
9.7
9.7
9.7
15
15
15
15
10
40
10
40
10
40
to 14
to 26
to 22
to 26
to 23
to 25
to 13
to 25
to 25
to 19.7
»
to 19.7
to 19.7
to 25
to 25
to 25
to 25
to 40
to 70
to 40
to 70
to 40
to 70
1
2
- 3
- 2
- 4
-11
- 4.1
- 4.1
- 5.4
- 5.8
- 8
- 8
- 7
-10
- 7
-37.9
- 4.4
-34.4
- 6.5
-36.4
.
to -17
to -13
to -17
to -17
to -18
_
to -21
to -19.1
to -14.1
»
to -15.4
to -15.8
to -18
to -18
to -17
to -20
to -37.7
to -67.9
to -34.4
to -64.4
to -36.5
to -66.4
3.26
1.26
2.48
2.79
2.85
0.0
0.0
1
0.0
*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.97
1.94
0.97
1.88
1.33
1.28
*
12.65
10.09
11.57
9.29
9.84
—
4.17
6.93
5.63
*
4.30
3.44
7.48
6.78
7.77
5.43
4.23
3.95
6.53
7.52
4.83
4.91
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6.
6
Data to be obtained
Bent at an angle
-------
-109-
Table_A»2 (Continued)
Well
No.
33S
33D
34S
340
35S
20b-1
21-1
22-1
23-1
24-1
25-1
322
322-1
B
C
E
L
R
S
T
U
W
Y*»
H2
H3a
H4a
Permit
Number
30-2637
30-2638
30-2842
30-2841
30-2840
30-2683
30-2684
30-2685
30-2686
30-2696
30-2695
30-2433
30-2513
F30-25
F30-26
F30-27
30-2481
F30-33
F30-34
F30-35
F30-36
F30-38
F30-81
F30-66
*
30-3407
Screened
(feet below
land surface)
10 to 40
40 to 70
20 to 40
40 to 63
12 to 40
10 to 13
13.5 to 16.5
19.5 to 30
12.5 to 15.5
18 to 28
18 to 28
5 to 25
2 to 22
24 to 29
30 to 35
18 to 20
5 to 15
18.9 to 21.4
27 to 29.5
14.4 to 16.9
19.7 to 22.2
19.9 to 22.4
10 to 12
7.3 to 9.3
12.5 to 14.5
14 to 19
Interval
(feet
relative to
mean sea level)
- 4.8 to -34.8
-34.6 to -64.6
-16.2 to -36.2
-37.1 to -60.1
- 8.9 to -36.9
_
-
-
_
-
-
3 to -16
5 to -15
-16 to -21
-20 to -25
-
^
-14 to -16
-22 to -24.5
- 7.1 to - 9.6
2.4 to - 0.1
-11.3 to -13.8
- 8 to -10
-0.5 to - 2.5
- 5.6 to - 7.7
-
Height of
Measuring
Point
(feet
above
land
surface)
2.35
1.93
2
2
3
»
-
-
_
-
-
2.23
2.20
1.32
0.0
-
^
1.79
2.59
1.70
-0.10
2.07
2.97
2.11
2.65
2.14
Elevation
of Measur-
ing Point
(feet rel-
ative to
mean sea
level)
7.56
7,34
5,81
4.89
6.10
6.51
7.09
7.52
9.10
7.42
7.03
10.53
9.07
9.01
9.55
4.88
6.33
6.74
7.56
8.99
22.01
10.72
5.33
8.94
*
9.16
Casing
Diameter
(inches)
6
6
6
6
6
• 1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
2
2
2.5
2.5
2.5
2
2.5
2.5
2.5
3
2.5
1.25
1.25
1.25
2
* Data to be obtained
** Bent at an angle
-------
-110-
TableA-3 (Continued)
Screened Interval
Well
No.
K1
K2
P4
W15a
W17
W18
W19
W20
W21
W22
W23
W24
W25
W26
W27
W28
W29
W30
W31
X1
X2
AA
BBa
CC
DO
Permit
Number
F3G-30
F30-69
F30-80
»
F30-63
F30-64
F30-65
30-2518
30-2519
30-2520
30-2521
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
F30-70
F 30-71
F30-72
*
F30-39
F30-40
(feet below
land surface)
8
14
17
6.
9.
10.
10.
6.
19
8.
19
10
4.
18
15
.4 to 10.4
.3 to 16.3
.5 to 19.5
8 to 16.8
9 to 19.9
1 to 20.1
1 to 20.1
5 to 11.5
to 24
5 to 13.5
to 24
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
»
to 12
9 to 6.9
.
*
to 20
to 19
(feet
relative to
mean sea level)
0.5 to - 1,5
- 5.7 to - 7.7
- 9 to -11
4.7 to - 5.3
- 0.9 to -10.9
2.9 to - 7.1
6.8 to - 3.2
- 5.6 to -10.6
-18 to -23
- 7.9 to -12.9
-19 to -24
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
—
-
_
*
-12 to -14
1 to - 3
Height of
Measuring
Point
(feet
above
land
surface)
1.68
2.14
1.71
3.68
3.66
3.25
0.42
2.00
1.93
2.68
2.67
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
»
_
-
3.63
*
1.35
1.00
Elevation
of Measur-
ing Point
(feet rel-
ative to Casing
mean sea Diameter
level) (inches)
10.59
10.75
10.24
*
12.71
16.20
17.34
2.89
2.98
3.33
3.14
*
*
»
*
*
*
»
*
5.09
6.04
5.42
*
7.51
16.53
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
2
2
2
2
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1.25
1.25
1.25
*
2
2
* Data to be obtained
-------
-Ill-
Tab leA-3 . (Continued)
Well
No.
FF
GG
HH
II
AV2
MA1S
MA1I
MA 10
MA2S
MA2I
MA2D
MA3S
MA3I
MA30
MA4S
MA4I
MA4D
MA5S
MA5I
MA5D
MA6S
MA6I
MA60
MA7S
MA7I
MA7D
MASS
MA8I
MA 80
Permit
Number
F30-74
F30-75
F30-77
F30-43
30-2515
30-2484
30-2483
30-2482
30-2487
30-2486
30-2485
30-2608
30-2607
30-2606
30-2611
30-2610
30-2609
30-2490
30-2489
30-2488
30-2493
30-2492
30-2491
30-2496
30-2495
30-2494
30-2499
30-2498
30-2497
Screened
(feet below
land surface)
16.9
10.7
3.6
3
13
5
25
57
5
25
59
5
30
45
10
35
60
5
27
50
6
11
49
15
24
52
8.5
25
39
to 19.9
to 13.7
to 6.6
to 37.5
to 23
to 10
to 35
to 67
to 10
to 35
to 69
to 10
to 40
to 60
to 15
to 50
to 70
to 10
to 37
to- 60
to 11
to 21
to 59
to 20
to 34 •
to 62
to 13.5
to 35
to 49
Interval
(feet
relative to
mean sea level)
- 2.3
4.9
5
- 3
-23
-55
- 3
-23
-57
- 2
-27
-42
- 5
-30
-55
- 3
-25
-48
- 4
. - 9
-47
-13
-22
-51
- 6.7
-23
-37
.
to - 5.3
—
to -29.6
to - 5
to - 8
to -33
to -65
to - 8
to -33
to -67
to - 7
to -37
to -57
to -10
to -45
to -65
to - 8
to -35
to -58
to - 9
to -19
to -57
to -18
to -32
to -61
to -11.7
to -33
to -47
Height of
Measuring
Point
(feet
above
land
surface )
.
2.66
—
1.97
2.10
0.85
3.17
3.46
1.35
1.17
3.00
1.18
1.75
1.58
2.89
2.75
2.60
1.58
1.55
1.93
1.80
1.70
1.86
1.37
1.32
1.40
1.55
1.00
1.07
Elevation
of Measur-
ing Point
(feet rel-
ative to
mean sea
level)
6.67
11.07
5.08
9.88
20.31
2.53
4.84
5.10
3.23
3.24
5.10 '
4.28
4.89
4.23
7.77
7.67
7.40
4.01
4.03
4.38
3.78
3.76
3.82
2.89
2.92
2.73
3.39
2.89
2.60
Casing
Diameter
(inches)
1.25
1.25
1.25
2
2
2
2
2
1.25
1.25
1.25
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
. 1.25
1.25
-------
-112-
TableA-3 (Continued)
Screened
Well
No.
MA9S
MA9I
MA9D
MA10S
MA10I
MA10D
MA11S
MA11I
MA11D
MW1a
MW2a
MW3a
MW4a
MW5
MW6
MW7
DP1
DP2
DP 3
DP4**»
DP5
Permit
Number
30-2507
30-2506
30-2500
30-2510
30-2509
30-2508
30-2573
30-2512
30-2511
*
30-3408
30-3409
*
30-2438
30-2439"
30-2697
30-1472
30-1471
F30-44
30-2539
30-2522
(feet below
land surface)
7.5
19
59
5
19
49
5
19
45
1
2
2
1
3
1
20
80
80
75
95
78.5
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
12.5
29
69
10
29
59
10
29
55
26
20
20
21
28
29
30
90
90
85
125
88.5
Interval
(feet
relative to
mean sea level)
- 4.9
-16
-57
- 4
-18
-48
- 4
-18
-44
5
8
6
7
-75
-72
-53
-83
-71
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
-
-
to
to
to
-
to
to
to
to
to
- 9.9
- 26
- 67
- 9
- 28
- 58
- 9
- 28
- 54
- 20
- 12
- 19
- 21
- 85
- 82
- 63
-113
- 81
Height of
Measuring
Point
(feet
above
land
surface)
2.37
0.75
0.95
1.50
1.05
1.90
2.17
1.75
1.70
1.85
1.69
2.78
0.80
1.00
1.80
-
2.48
2.13
0.05
1.53
1.63
Elevation
of Measur-
ing Point
(feet rel-
ative to
mean sea
level)
5
3
3
2
1
2
3
2
3
*
7
10
*
9
9
10
7
10
22
13
9
.02
.30
.23
.38
.99
.98
.39
.97
.01
.75
.02
.52
.59
.67
.58
.62
.05
.13
.13
Casing
Diameter
(inches)
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.25
4
4
4
8
6
Note; Wells DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4, and DPS are screened in the shallow artesian
aquifer
***
Data to be obtained
Screen diameter = 6 inches
-------
-113-
Table A-4
Water Level Measurements Taken by the Task Force at RES
Well
No.
TT
DP-4
AV-2b
DP-3
S
P-4
MW- 1 A
np-R
W29
W30
W31
W28
14
W15A
322
21A
MW-2A
22
W27
23b
W24
W25
13
MW-3A
24
17
MA-7S
MA-7D
MA-2S
MA-2D
MA-3S
MA- 3D
29
MA- 10
MA- IS
4A
Static
2/19/87
DRY
9 98
15.94
19 15
5.85
8 27
7.90
8.09
8.33
7.96
7.74
11.71
8.67
4.73
5.46
3 73
4.55
6 57
7.27
11.83
10.68
7.34
2.62
7.91
1.99
1.82
3.42
4.36
2.80
3.82
2.78
1.31
2.60
True
Water
Level
3 15
4.37
2 90
1.71
1 97
2.43
2.43
4.06
2.93
2 35
*
1.86
2.20
2.29
1 Q
1.96
*
1.76
1.94
1.97
2.68
1.68
1.93
0.90
0.91
1.68
-.08
1.43
1.61
2.32
1.22
*
Static
2/9/87
Q gg a
15.77 a
19 89 a
5.99 a
9 07 a
4 ?o a
7 1 n a
/ . 1U
7.23 a
7 93a
11 42a
8 17a
5 57a
4.10
6.10a
12 75a
8.70a
2.29
1.21
1 7£
1. / j
2.50
3.79
2 21
3.46
2.54
1.08
2.29
True
Water
Level
3 44
4.54
216
1.57
1 1 7
*
o r\o
L, UJ
3.10
4 46
*
2 36
2 18
2.41
2.43
1 02
1.14
0 6
1 52
In Q
.q-o
2.6
0.49
? n?
1.97
2 56
1.45
*
Static
Sampling
15.81
5.44
7 A 1
/ .41
7.43
4.42
4.10
7.14
7.49
1-j r
. /b
2.56
3.74
3.37
1.11
True
Water
Level
4.50
2.12
1 7O
1. / L
2.90
2.51
2.41
1.89
2.35
.48
2.54
0.54
2.06
1.42
Sampl ing
Date
2/10
2/10
O/17
Hii
2/18
2/13
2/13
2/17
2/11
2/12
2/12
2/10
2/10
2/18
Measurements taken to top of PVC (inner) casing unless otherwise qualified
a - Measurements taken by Alliance to top of protective casing
b - Upgradient well
* - data to be obtained
-------
-114-
Table A-4 (Cont.)
Water Level Measurements Taken by the Task Force at RES
Well
No.
28
MA-8S
MA-8D
MA-4S
MA-4D
MA-9S
MA-9D
MW-6
R
25
MW-4A
MW-7
26
MA-11I
MA-11D
DP-2
DP-1
L-2
Static
2/19/87
6.38
2 81
1.55
6 64
6 15
3.79
3 74
7 «9
4 30
Pumping
8.73
9.19
6.08
True
Water
Level
1 39
0 58
1.05
1 13
1 25
1.23
- 51
1 70
2 44
*
1.48
1.40
Static
2/9/87
6 29
2 87
1.71
7 23
8 92
5.00
5 40
4.02
6.97-
10.33
7.88
1.81
0.80
11.21
True
Water
Level
1 48
R?
0.89
n Rd
0.02
-217
-.58
*
0.34
-.4
1.16
2.21
-.59
Static
Sampling
1.87
4.59
3.52
6.90
1.79
10.25
6CC
. 03
C Of)
0. L.\J
True
Water
Level
0.73
0.43
-.08
*
1.22
.37
no
. yj
Sam pi ing
Date
2/16
2/11
2/12
2/11
2/18
2/16
9 / 1 O
C.I i y
71 1 Q
el iy
Measurements taken to top of PVC (inner) casing unless otherwise specified
a - Measurements taken by Alliance to top of protective casing
b - Upgradient well
* - data to be obtained
-------
-115-
Table A-5
Duplicate Water Level Measurements Taken by the Task Force
Well
Number
MA-2S3
4Aa
MA-8Da
26a
MW-24b
322b
322C
17C
Deptf
Water
1
1.75
2.3
1.73
8.21
6.91
—
8.67
7.91
i to
ft.)
2
1.75
2.25
1.71
7.875
6.90
--
8.67
7.91
Depth to
u Water
Difference
(ft.)
0.00
0.50
0.02
0.335
0.01
--
0.00
0.00
Total
Depth(ft.)
1
8.73
19.04
49.83
24.75
--
26.77
--
--
2
8.73
19.08
49.81
24.79
--
26.66
--
--
Total
Depth
Difference
(ft.)
0.00
0.04
0.02
0.04
--
0.11
--
--
Time
Between
Measurements
Immediate
it
ii
H
M
H
M
H
Date
2/9/87
2/9/87
2/9/87
2/9/87
2/9/87
2/9/87
2/19/87
2/19/87
- No duplicate measurements taken
a - Distance measured in feet from top of casing. Team: DiGuardia/DeLuca
b - Distance measured in feet from top of protective casing. Team: Lewis/Naughton
c - Distance measured in feet from top of casing. Team: DiGuardia/Lewis/Naughton
-------
-116-
Table A-6
Physical Characteristics of Wells Measured and Sampled by Task Force at
Rollins Environmental Services
Well
No.
* AV-2
S
MA-3S
* 29
MA-9S
17
MW-4A
MA- 20
MA-2S
25
* 21A
W27
DP-2
MA-8D
W-24
DP-5
W-29
MA-11D
MA- IS
DP-1
L-2
Total
Depth
(ft.)
22.9
29.78
13.29
25.0
13.69
20.64
24.25
67.70
8.75
19.70
25.00
24.85
89.53
49.02
25.48
88.43
26.64
55.25
13.93
93.56
14.51
Static
Water Level
(ft.)
15.81
5.44
3.74
3.37
4.59
7.49
6.90
2.56
1.75
3.52
4.42
4.10
10.25
1.87
7.14
7.41
7.43
1.79
1.11
6.65
6.20
Casing
Diameter
(in.)
2
4
2
4
1.25
4
2
1.25
1.25
4
6
4
4
1.25
4
6
4
1.25
2
4
4
Volume
in column
(gal.)
1.2
9.0
1.6
14.0
.59
8.5
2.85
5.97
.65
10.08
30.20
13.4
50.8
4.8
12.0
116.0
12.5
5.45
2.1
55
5.4
Volume
Purged
(gal.)
3.8
27.0
5.0
56.0
2.0
26.0
9.0
18.0
2.0
42.0
94.0
45.0
155.0
15.0
38.0
360.0
38.0
16.5
7.0
170.0
16.25
* Upgradient
* Abatement Well - no total
depth
+ All measurements taken from top of casing
-------
-117-
Table A-7
Results of Air Monitoring at Ground Water Monitoring Wells Sampled by the Task
Force at RES
Well
Number
AV-2
S
MA-3S
29
MA-9S
17
MW-4A
MA-2D
MA-2S
25
21A
W27
DP-2
MA-8D
W24
DP-5
W29
MA-11D
MA- IS
DP-1
L-2
OVA
Readings
(ppm)
background
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
3.5
2.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
wel 1
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
18
2.0
>100.0+
5.0
4.0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
HNU
Readings
(ppm)
background
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.4
well
0.3
0.4
13.0
0.4
1.2
0.5
0.4
40.0+
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.3
20.0+
0.6
6.0
Geiger
Readings
(mrems/hr)
background
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
well
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Interface
Probe
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
* OVA not operational
+ Reading obtained upon purging well
-------
-118-
Table A-8
Field Measurements Conducted by the Task Force at RES
Sample
Location
AV-2
S
MA-3S
29
MA-9S
17
MW-4A
MA- 20
MA-2S
25
21A
W27
DP-2
MA-8D
W24
DP-5
W29
MA-11D
MA- IS
DP-1
L-2
Temperature
(C°)
11.2
12.9
10.1
14.5
11.0
9.8
7.2
12.3
10.1
12.9
15.0
11.0
13.8
11.2
13.0
11.9
7.8
11.2
12.0
9.7
13.7
pH
(S.U.)
6.1
4.5
5.2
6.0
5.6
6.3
6.8
6.9
6.1
6.7
6.2
6.8
4.7
6.2
6.9
4.1
6.4
6.0
6.3
6.3
6.3
Specific
Conductivity
250
500
650
1200
300
475
260
11600
1300
10500
5250
3250
230
480
3000
575
540
340
1225
330
2750
Turbidity
(NTU)
6.2
20
15
30
>100
42
>100
NA
>100
>100
20
>100
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA - Not analyzed
-------
-119-
Key to Results of Sample Analysis
J - Compound present below the specified detection limit
N - Indicates spike sample recovery is not within control limits
* - Indicates duplicate analysis is not within control limits
S - Indicates value determined by Method of Standard Addition
U - Compound was analyzed but not detected
() If the result is a value greater than or equal to the instrument
detection limit but less than the contract required detection limit
— - data did not pass QA/QC review
-------
-120-
Table A-9 Results of Inorganic and Indicator Type Analyses
Water Table Aquifer
Parameter
mg/1
Bromide
Chloride
Fluoride
Sul fate
MA-8D
MQB-003
U
35
U
58
MA-3S
MQB-005
U
126
U
40
29
MQB-006
2.3
153
1.1
17
MA-2S
MQB-007
U
195
2.2
58
S
MQB-008
U
24
U
18
MA-9S
MQB-009
U
33
U
28
AV-2
MQB-010
U
4.5
U
48
W-29
MQB-011
(DUP)
U
23
1.0
69
MA-2D
MQB-012
U
1300
U
620
Parameter
ug/1
POC
TOC
Phenols,
total
POX
TOX
MA-8D
MQB-003
980
1800
U
U
—
MA-3S
MQB-005
3300
10000
U
11
—
29
MQB-006
4540
42000
888
3330
5380
MA-2S
MQB-007
76
16000
U
U
S
MQB-008
U
1600
U
U
—
MA-9S
MQB-009
78
8000
U
18
—
AV-2
MQB-010
224
1800
U
U
—
W-29
MQB-011
(DUP)
1420
10000
U
6
—
MA-2D
MQB-012
4400
204000
888
11100
4100
-------
-121-
Table A-9 (Cont.) - Results of Inorganic and Indicator Type Analyses
Water Table Aquifer
Parameter
mg/1
Bromide
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
25
MQB-013
U
2250
U
2700
21A
MQB-014
30
1760
13
375
L-2
MQB-025
25
1160
14
180
MW-4A
MQA-736
U
21
2.1
16
W-29
MQA-739
U
22
U
69
MA- IS
MQA-741
11
298
16
U
17
MQA-742
U
43
1.6
103
MW-4A
MQA-743
(DUP)
U
40
1.5
30
MW-27
MQA-744
5.3
760
6.9
320
Parameter
ug/1
POC
TOC
Phenols,
total
POX
TOX
25
MQB-013
42
16000
U
26
—
21A
MQB-014
75
6200
U
14
—
L-2
MQB-025
48
9400
U
U
—
MW-4A
MQA-736
83
268000
U
U
—
W-29
MQA-739
980
10000
U
U
MA- IS
MQA-741
28000
267000
5000
7400
21300
17
MQA-742
1380
13000
U
393
574
MW-4A
MQA-743
(DUP)
97
206000
U
U
—
MW-27
MQA-744
1400
9800
U
19
—
-------
-122-
Table A-9 (Cont.) - Results of Inorganic and Indicator Type Analyses
Water Table Aquifer
Shallow Artesian Aquifer
Parameter
mg/1
Bromide
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
W-24
MQA-745
4.5
790
U
280
MA-11D
MQA-749
U
30
U
60
DP-2
MQB-004
U
32
U
12
DP-1
MQB-026
U
75
U
9.2
DP-5
MQA-750
U
68
U
112
Parameter
ug/1
POC
TOC
Phenols,
total
POX
TOX
W-24
MQA-745
3000
15000
U
103
MA-11D
MQB-749
1160
1700
U
U
—
DP-2
MQB-004
26
U
U
U
DP-1
MQB-026
44
U
U
U
DP-5
MQA-750
280
3000
U
131
-------
-123-
Table A-10 - Results of Total Metals Analyses
Mater Table Aquifer
Parameter
ug/1
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromi urn
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Cyanide(DUP
MA-8D
MQB-003
1770*
U
U*
(116)N
U
UN
35300
U
(22)
(24)
2580N
5.6N
15900N
596
UN
(29)
12300
UN
U
18400
UN
U
U
123
—
i NA
MA-3S
MQB-005
28500*
U
(7.8)*
(137)N
(2)
UN
33600
120
U
89
30100N
19N
14300N
198
2. IN
(29)
(4190)
UN
U
54000
UN
U
136
69
UN
NA
29
MQB-006
447*
U
57*S
(50)N
U
UN
50300
20
U
26
17500N
UN
18300N
1340
UN
U
8200
UN
U
77100
UN
U
(17)
43
UN
NA
MA-2S
MQB-007
30200*
U
13*S
208N
(2)
(.6)N
36600
65
(20)
(24)
40200N
31N
23400N
791
.3N
(30)
6220
UN
U
93100
UN
U
(42)
93
—
NA
S
MQB-008
661*
U
U*
(78)N
U
—
24600
U
U
48
1510N
(4.1)N
20400N
228
UN
U
(4220)
UN
U
7680
UN
U
U
82
UN
NA
MA-9S
MQB-009
7160*
U
U*
(46)N
U
(.6)N
42000
25
U
40
31700N
25N
7260N
539
3.7N
(26)
6630
UN
U
11600
UN
U
304
59
UN
NA
AV-2
MQB-010
55400*
U
18*
274N
(3)
—
12900
163
21
191
61100N
26NS
7950N
669
UN
(26)
18600
UN
U
(3070)
UN
U
403
97
UN
NA
W-29
HQB-011
(DUP)
1620*
U
23*S
(59)N
U
UN
56200
22
U~
69
21400N
17NS
28500N
751
UN
U
5230
UN
U
21300
UN
U
U
43
UN
NA
-------
-124-
Table A-10 (Cont.) - Results of Total Metals Analyses
Uater Table Aquifer
Parameter
ug/1
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesi urn
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thall ium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Cyanide(DUP
MA-2D
MQB-012
8290*
U
394*S
(52)N
U
UN
145000
18
(27)
(16)
7990N
46NS
176000N
287
—
167
48300
UN
U
1710000
UN
U
292
92
—
i NA
25
MQB-013
5600*
U
472*S
(116)N
(2)
UN
451000
440
U
294
99700N
(26)N
256000N
719
—
U
17200
UN
U
820000
UN
U
(22)
204
45
50
21A
MQB-014
1130
U
43*S
(68)N
U
UN
306000
101
U
U
13900N
6.5N
196000N
98
—
U
15100
UN
U
482000
UN
U
U
38
UN
NA
L-2
MQB-025
14000*
U
U*
(123)N
U
278000
29
U
36
19900N
25N
167000N
475
—
U
11600
UN
U
405000
UN
U
(38)
53
UN
NA
MW-4A
MQA-736
360000*
U
U*
1040N
25
(2)N
58600
1640
122
1680
438000N
51N
31900N
2140
1.4N
184
34900
UN
U
7980
UN
U
1100
1280
80
87
W-29
MQA-739
2770*
U
22*S
(45)N
U
UN
53600
19
U
61
21400N
13N
28000N
743
UN
U
5240
UN
U
21100
UN
U
U
31
UN
NA
MA- IS
MQA-741
U*
U
88*S
(59)N
U
UN
6390
U
U
U
7200N
21NS
(2320)N
178
.3N
U
(2740)
UN
U
71100
UN
U
U
(19)
UN
NA
17
MQA-742
7650*
U
62*S
(106)N
(2)
(7.5)N
78400
7880
66
4890
279000N
130N
13700N
2040
.4N
153
13800
UN
U
47400
UN
U
(46)
1350
UN
NA
-------
-125-
Table A-10 (Cont.) - Results of Total Metals Analyses
Mater Table Aquifer
Parameter
ug/1
Al uminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl 1 i urn
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Cyanide(DUP
MW-4A
MQA-743
(DUP)
215000*
U
(8.1)*
715N
17
(l.l)N
51000
1230
83
1230
293000N
192N
22300N
1600
IN
118
22400
UN
U
7610
UN
U
754
886
40
40
MW-27
MQA-744
5350*
—
27*
(69)N
U
UN
201000
U
U
150
13600N
24N
145000N
604
UN
U
10000
UN
U
295000
UN
U
U
78
UN
NA
W-24
MQA-745
1570*
U
U*
(32)N
U
UN
218000
U
(20)
(12)
50400N
29N
89400N
1900
UN
U
11800
UN
U
222000
UN
U
U
29
UN
NA
MA-11D
MQA-749
17700*
U
U*
(125)N
5
UN
36200
71
(30)
141
13300N
23NS
19100N
459
UN
(26)
14000
UN
U
6410
UN
U
(37)
168
UN
NA
Shallow Artesian Zone
DP-2
MQB-004
322*
U
U*
(105)N
U
(3.2)N
6880
U
U
(14)
386N
14N
(2780)N
116
UN
U
(2320)
UN
U
18700
UN
U
U
36
UN
NA
DP-1
MQB-026
(190)*
U
U*
(58)N
U
UN
5740
U
U
U
7250N
16N
(2100)N
176
UN
U
(2520)
UN
U
61500
UN
U
U
34
UN
NA
DP-5
MQA-750
1840*
U
U*
(79)N
U
UN
16800
U
(20)
28
538N
ION
18500N
69
UN
U
5550
UN
U
56200
UN
U
U
59
UN
NA
1
-------
-126-
Table A-ll - Results of Dissolved Metals Analyses
Water Table Aquifer
Parameter
ug/1
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
MA-8D
MQB-003
(44)
U
UN
(119)
U
U
37800
U
(35)
UN
920
UN
17800
656
UN
U
15000
UN
U
20600
UN
(40)
(14)
162
MA-3S
MQB-005
(49)
U
UN
(61)
U
U
32700
U
U
(8)N
2120
UN
12200
136
UN
U
(3360)
UN
U
55100
UN
U
U
30
29
MQB-006
(72)
U
52NS
(39)
U
U
53500
U
U
UN
11400
UN
20200
1450
UN
U
9330
—
U
84600
UN
U
(15)
(17)
MA-2S
MQB-007
(55)
U
UN
(101)
U
U
36600
U
U
UN
13100
40N
22500
715
UN
U
5810
UN
U
107000
UN
U
U
25
S
MQB-008
434
U
UN
(75)
U
U
26100
U
U
52N
U
5.4N
22500
216
UN
U
5120
UN
U
8450
UN
U
U
110
MA-9S
MQB-009
(52)
U
UN
(44)
U
U
44200
U
U
UN
89
UN
7880
503
UN
U
7510
UN
U
13800
UN
U
U
50
AV-2
MQB-010
U
U
UN
(62)
U
(1.4)
11000
U
U
UN
3870
5.3N
5640
491
UN
U
18800
UN
U
(3020)
UN
U
U
29
W-29
MQB-011
(DUP)
U
U
(7.5)NS
(52)
U
6.9
60700
U
U
UN
19000
UN
32100
831
UN
U
5710
UN
U
24100
UN
U
U
(19)
-------
-127-
Table A-ll (Cont.) - Results of Dissolved Metals Analyses
Water Table Aquifer
Parameter
ug/i
Al urn in urn
Antimony
Arsenic
Bari urn
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
MA-2D
MQB-012
(44)
U
264NS
(54)
U
U
155000
U
U
UN
238
UN
196000
296
—
150
54400
—
U
1570000
UN
U
311
31
25
MQB-013
(142)
U
56NS
(88)
U
U
515000
U
U
(11)N
11300
UN
299000
773
—
U
19700
UN
U
738000
UN
U
(15)
55
21A
MQB-014
820
U
UN
(74)
U
U
358000
U
U
UN
3310
UN
236000
121
—
U
18800
UN
U
579000
UN
U
U
(16)
L-2
MQB-025
245
U
UN
(87)
U
U
284000
U
U
UN
4640
UN
170000
429
—
U
9530
UN
U
421000
UN
U
U
21
MW-4A
MQA-736
(60)
U
UN
(48)
U
U
37500
U
U
UN
U
UN
6170
35
UN
U
5290
UN
U
9270
UN
U
U
U
W-29
MQA-739
U
U
___
(52)
U
U
58600
U
U
UN
16600
UN
30500
779
UN
U
5480
UN
U
22500
UN
(38)
U
(19)
MA- IS
MQA-741
U
U
— — —
(121)
U
U
57400
U
U
UN
151000
UN
13400
2440
UN
U
11700
UN
U
132000
UN
U
U
41
17
MQA-742
280
U
UN
(31)
U
U
70000
U
U
UN
11700
(2.4)N
12700
1040
UN
U
13100
UN
U
32000
UN
U
U
92
-------
-128-
Table A-ll (Cont.) - Results of Dissolved Metals Analyses
Water Table Aquifer
Shallow Artesian Zone
Parameter
ug/1
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
MW-4A
MQA-743
(DUP)
339
U
UN
(61)
U
U
37100
U
U
UN
(98)
UN
5960
47
UN
U
5460
UN
U
8620
UN
U
U
28
MW-27
MQA-744
(187)
U
20N
(49)
U
U
221000
U
U
UN
7820
UN
161000
628
UN
U
12200
UN
U
315000
UN
U
U
29
W-24
MQA-745
U
U
UN
(32)
U
U
236000
U
U
UN
40300
UN
102000
2150
UN
U
14300
UN
U
244000
UN
U
U
36
MA-11D
MQA-749
620
U
UN
(86)
(3)
(1)
34900
U
(21)
74N
(41)
UN
16800
368
UN
U
13100
UN
U
5700
UN
U
U
124
DP-2
MQB-004
U
U
UN
(113)
U
(2.5)
7600
U
U
(11)N
(27)
12N
(3230)
129
UN
U
(3070)
UN
U
20400
UN
U
U
50
DP-1
MQB-026
U
U
UN
(59)
U
U
6440
U
U
UN
7270
UN
(2380)
178
UN
U
(2600)
UN
U
70700
UN
53
U
U
DP-5
MQA-750
456
U
UN
(100)
U
U
18200
U
(25)
(21)N
(84)
28N
21000
76
UN
U
6670
UN
U
62700
UN
U
U
110
-------
-129-
Table A-12 - Results of Volatile Organics Analyses
Water Table Aquifer
Parameter
ug/1
Ar P 1" n n P
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
Ethyl benzene
2-Hexanone
Mp1"hvlpnp rhlnrirlp
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trans- 1,2- Die hi oroethene
Toluene
Total Xylene
Vinyl Chloride
1,2-Dibromoethane
TV* l r hi n i*n fl iiny*nniP"t'hanp
HA-8D
MQB-003
U
12
U
U
U
U
U
U
6
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
11
MA-3S
MQB-005
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
29
MQB-006
530
U
U
U
69
440
45J
120
U
73
U
27J
230
330
51
570
190
35J
U
MA-2S
MQB-007
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
s
MQB-008
U
U
U
U
. U
2J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
MA-9S
MQB-009
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
26
U
U
U
U
-------
-130-
Table A-12 (Cont.) - Results of Volatile Organics Analyses
Water Table Aquifer
Parameter
ug/1
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachl oride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
Ethyl benzene
2-Hexanone
M4-U1 ^ t* 1 'A
netnyiene unioriae
Tetrachl oroethene
Trichloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trans- 1,2-Dic hi oroethene
Toluene
Total Xylene
Vinyl Chloride
1,2-Dibromoethane
•f ' U 1 -Cl 4- U
incni oroT I uororoe inane
AV-2
MQB-010
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
W29
MQB-011
(DUP)
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
2J
U
U
U
MA-2D
MQB-012
1800
41J
990
U
310
U
38J
U
U
190J
U
U
U
U
U
62J
610
U
U
25
MQB-013
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
21A
MQB-014
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
2J
U
U
U
L-2
HQB-025
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
-------
-131-
Table A-12 (Cont.) - Results of Volatile Organics Analyses
Water Table Aquifer
Parameter
ug/1
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloro pro pane
Ethyl benzene
2-Hexanone
iMcLiiy i ciic i/iii uriuc
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Toluene
Total Xylene
Vinyl Chloride
1,2-Dibromoethane
•T-- _l_T -.„-. £~\ , , — u* ,-. m s-v 4- It r\ *\ <-v
incnioroTi uo rofuc inane
MW-4A
MQA-736
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
20
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
W-29
MQA-739
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
MA- IS
MQA-741
3100
1300
U
U
360J
700
510
300J
U
720
1100
U
U
860
1600
10000
2800
1000
U
17
MQA-742
16
U
U
U
31
33
9
U
U
8
U
41
120
150
12
2J
U
U
U
MW-4A
MQA-743
(DUP)
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
20
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
MW-27
MQA-744
30
U
U
U
7
U
20
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
30
U
U
20
U
-------
-132-
Table A-12 (Cont.) - Results of Volatile Organics Analyses
Water Table Aquifer
Shallow Artesian Zone
Parameter
ug/1
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
Ethyl benzene
2-Hexanone
M£\ 4- k\ \/1 ^ n ^ f*l*iT n v* i H o
pietnyienc Lnioriuc
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
Toluene
Total Xylene
Vinyl Chloride
1,2-Dibromoethane
T •! *i U "1 **. u**\ -G~\ n\s*ngTf>r\4-V\ir\f\
i ncn i oroT i uo ronictnane
W-24
MQA-745
38
U
U
7
13
4J
9
23
U
6
U
6
94
29
32
4J
9
16
U
MA-11D
MQA-749
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP-2
MQB-004
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
7J
U
DP-1
MQB-026
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP-5
MQA-750
7
U
U
U
U
5
10
180
U
U
U
2J
20
U
4J
U
U
8J
U
-------
-133-
Table A-13 - Results of Semi-Volatile Organics Analyses
Water Table Aquifer
Parameter
ug/1
Acenaphthene
Benzoic Acid
Bis(2-chloroethyl )ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl )phthalate
2-Chlorophenol
4-Chloroaniline
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2, 4-Dimethyl phenol
2-Methyl phenol
4-Methyl phenol
2-Methyl naphthal ene
Naphthalene
Phenol
MA-8D
MQB-003
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Phosphorictriamide.Hexamethyl U
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Acetophenone
Aniline
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl -2- Pentanone
Pyridine
0-Toluidine
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
MA-3S
MQB-005
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
29
MQB-006
U
340
200
10
2000
38
4J
8J
170
180
U
47
140
370
13
U
410
150
U
U
U
960
MA-2S
MQB-007
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
s
MQB-008
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
MA-9S
MQB-009
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
-------
-134-
Table A-13 (Cont.) - Results of Semi- Volatile Organics Analyses
Mater Table Aquifer
Parameter
ug/1
Acenaphthene
Benzoic Acid
Bis(2-chloroethyl )ether
f-i«/rt -.iL..i1 L« x-\ i* t il \ r\ Uv ^ t» -4 1 n +• n
Bi s(2-ethyl hexyl )pntna late
2-Chlorophenol
4-Chloroaniline
1, 2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2, 4-Dimethyl phenol
2-Methyl phenol
411 — . i L i 1 n Uin v* *> 1
-Methyl pheno I
2-Methyl naphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenol
AV-2
MQB-010
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Phosphorictriamide.Hexamethyl U
1, 2, 4-Tric hi orobenzene
Acetophenone
Anil ine
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Pyridine
0-Toluidine
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
W29
MQB-011
(DUP)
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
MA-2D
MQB-012
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
9J
260
U
11J
U
110
380
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
25
MQB-013
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
21A
MQB-014
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
L-2
MQB-025
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
2J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
-------
-135-
Table A-13 (Cont.) - Results of Semi-Volatile Organics Analyses
Water Table Aquifer
Parameter
ug/1
Acenaphthene
Benzoic Acid
Bis(2-chloroethyl )ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl )phthalate
2-Chlorophenol
4-Chloroaniline
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethyl phenol
2-Methyl phenol
4-Methyl phenol
2-Methyl naphtha! ene
Naphthalene
Phenol
MW-4A
MQA-736
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Phosphorictriamide.Hexamethyl U
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Acetophenone
Aniline
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl -2-Pentanone
Pyridine
0-Toluidine
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
W-29
MQA-739
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
MA- IS
MQA-741
U
U
U
U
27000
93
U
31J
47
970
U
100
1000
U
U
U
U
1700
U
330
200
2700
17
MQA-742
U
U
U
U
U
5J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
6J
U
U
U
U
U
U
MW-4A
MQA-743
(DUP)
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
77
U
U
U
MW-27
MQA-744
U
U
2 J
U
U
U
5J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
-------
-136-
Table A-13 (Cont.) - Results of Semi-Volatile Organics Analyses
Water Table Aquifer
Shallow Artesian Zone
Parameter
ug/1
Acenaphthene
Benzoic Acid
Bis(2-chloroethyl )ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl )phthalate
2-Chlorophenol
4-Chloroaniline
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1, 3- Dichl orobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2, 4-Dimethyl phenol
2-Methyl phenol
4-Methyl phenol
2-Methyl naphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenol
W-24
MQA-745
U
U
3J
U
160
2J
4J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Phosphorictriamide.Hexamethyl U
1, 2, 4-Tr ic hi orobenzene
Acetophenone
Anil ine
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl -2-Pentanone
Pyridine
0-Toluidine
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
MA-11D
MQA-749
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP-2
MQB-004
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP-1
MQB-026
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP-5
MQA-750
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
-------
-137-
Table A-14 - Tentatively Identified Compounds Requiring Confirmation Using
Authentic Standards
Well #
MA-3S
Sample #
MQB-005
Compounds
Concentration, ug/1
29
MQB-006
MA-2 5
MA-9S
AV-2
W-29 (DUP)
MQB-007
MQB-008
MQB-009
MQB-010
MQB-011
Tetrahydrofuran 800
Cyclohexanone 400J
Unknown BNA 10J
Unknown BNA 200
Unknown BNA 10J
Thiobismethane 300J
Unknown VOA 80J
Ethyl benzene 70J
Xylene 200 J
Xylene 70 J
Unknown BNA 80J
C9H10 Substituted Benzene 100J
2-chloroaniline 4700J
1,3-Pentanediol ,2,2,4-Trimethyl 800
Unknown BNA 5000
Unknown BNA 400
Unknown Chlorinated Compound 400
Benzene(Butoxymethyl ) 500
X,Y-Dichloroanil ine 1000
Naphtha! ene, 1-methyl- 370
Unknown BNA 300
X,Y-Dichloroanil ine 5000
X,Y-Dichloroaniline 3000
Unknown Chlorinated Compound 600
Phenol ,4-(l-methyl-l-phenylethyl-) 1000
Sulfur Mol. (58) 20000
Cyclohexanol 600
Butyrolactine 80
Unknown 200
Unknown BNA 1000
Unknown BNA 200
Unknown BNA 100
2-Propanol, 1-methoxy- (VOA) 50
Unknown BNA 800
Unknown BNA 200
HEMPA BNA
Unknown BNA
Unknown BNA 600
-------
-138-
Table A-14 (Cont.) - Tentatively Identified Compounds Requiring Confirmation Using
Authentic Standards
Well # Sample # Compounds Concentration, ug/1
MA-2D MQB-012 Benzene .ethyl 100J
Xylene 200J
Cyclohexanol 100J
Xylene 100J
Unknown 500J
1,2,4-Trithiolane 2000J
2-chloroaniline 20000J
Unknown BNA 100J
Unknown BNA 60J
1,3,5-Trithiane 1000J
Unknown BNA 600J
Unknown BNA 1000J
Unknown BNA 800J
Unknown BNA 300J
1,2,4,6-Tetrathiepane 600J
Unknown BNA 300J
Unknown BNA 100J
Unknown BNA 400J
Unknown BNA 400J
Unknown BNA 200J
Unknown BNA 90J
25 MQB-013 Cyclohexanol 100J
Butyrolactone 10J
Unknown BNA 10J
Unknown BNA 10J
2,5-Cyclohexadiene-l,4-dione,
2,6-bis(l,l-dimethylethl) 20J
Phenol ,2,4-bis(l,l-dimethylethyl) 10J
21A MQB-014 Unknown BNA 40J
Sulfur Mol. (S8) 400J
1-2 MQA-025 Unknown BNA 40J
Unknown BNA 30J
Unknown BNA 8J
MW-4A MQA-736 Unknown BNA 30J
Butyrolactone 10J
Unknown BNA 100
Unknown BNA 20J
2,5-Cyclohexadiene-l,4-dione,
2,6-bis 100J
Unknown BNA 200
-------
-139-
Table A-14 (Cont.) - Tentatively Identified Compounds Requiring Confirmation Using
Authentic S§andards
Well # Sample # Compounds Concentration, ug/1
W-29 MQA-739 Unknown BNA 70J
Unknown BNA 20J
Unknown BNA 100J
9J
MA-IS MQA-741 Methylmercaptan 4000J
Xylene 400J
Unknown BNA 500J
Benzofuran 200J
C9H10 Substituted Benzene 700J
C9H10 Substituted Benzene 2000
Benzenamine,2-chloro- 357200
X,Y-dichloroaniline 5000
X,Y-dichloroaniline 30000
X,Y-dichloroaniline 10000
Unknown Chlorinated Compound 2000
Unknown Chlorinated Compound 2000
Unknown Chlorinated Compound 2000
Tributyl Phosphate 2000
Unknown BNA 2000
Unknown BNA 3000
Unknown BNA 3000
17 MQA-742 Dichlorodifluoroethane 100
Ethane,l,2-dichloro-l,l-difluoro 200
Unknown BNA 80
Trichloro-difluoro ethane 1000
Cyclohexanol 600
2,5-Cyclohexadiene,l-4-Dione,6-Bis
(1,1-dimethylethyl)- 300
Unknown BNA 100
Unknown BNA 200
Unknown BNA 400
MW-4A MQA-743 Cyclohexanol 700
(DUP) Unknown BNA 400
Unknown BNA 200
Unknown BNA 80
2,5-Cyclohexadiene-l,4Dione,2,6-bis
(1,1-dimethylethyl)- 1000
Unknown BNA 200
Unknown BNA 500
-------
-140-
Table A-14 (Cont.) - Tentatively Identified Compounds Requiring Confirmation Using
Authentic Standards
Well # Sample § Compounds Concentration, ug/1
MW-27
W-24
MA-11D
DP-2
DP-1
DP-5
MQA-744
MQA-745
MQA-749
MQB-004
MQB-026
MQA-750
HEMPA
Unknown BNA
Ethyl ether
Unknown VOA
Unknown BNA
Unknown BNA
2-chloroanil ine
Unknown BNA
Unknown BNA
HEMPA
Unknown BNA
Unknown BNA
Unknown BNA
Unknown BNA
HEMPA
Unknown BNA
10J
40J
30J
200
30J
40J
2100
100
600
200
90
800
700
400
200
600
-------
-141-
APPENDIX B
Evaluation of Quality Control Attendant
to the Analysis of Samples from the RES
Facility, New Jersey
-------
pro
Planning Hesearcn CoroorEiion
-142-
EVALUATION OF QUALITY CONTROL ATTENDANT
TO THE ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES FROM
ROLLINS FACILITY, NEW JERSEY
FINAL MEMORANDUM
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Washington,D.C. 20460
JJRBf* «r ?"s
Work Assignment No.
EPA Region
Site No.
Date Prepared
Contract No.
PRC No.
Prepared By
Telephone No.
EPA Primary Contact
Telephone No.
549
Headquarters
N/A
June 30, 1987
68-01-7037
015-0549-1003
PRC Environmental
Management, Inc.
(Ken Partymiller)
(713) 292-7568
Rich Steimle
(202) 382-7912
-------
-143-
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 30, 1987
SUBJECT: Evaluation of Quality Control Attendant to the Analysis of Samples
from the Rollins Environmental, New Jersey, Facility
FROM- Ken Partymiller, Chemist
PRC Environmental Management
THRU: Paul H. Friedman, Chemist*
TO: HWGWTF: Richard Steimle, HWGWTF* .
Gareth Pearson (EPA 8231)*
Fred Haber, Region II
Brian Lewis, HWGWTF
Sam Ezekwo, Region II
This memo summarizes the evaluation of the quality control data generated by
the Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force (HWGWTF) contract analytical
laboratories (1). This evaluation and subsequent conclusions pertain to the data
from the Rollins Environmental, New Jersey sampling effort by the Hazardous Waste
Ground-Water Task Force.
The objective of this evaluation is to give users of the analytical data a more
precise understanding of the limitations of the data as well as their appropriate use.
A second objective is to identify weaknesses in the data generation process for
correction. This correction may act on future analyses at this or other sites.
The evaluation was carried out on information provided in the accompanying
quality control reports (2-5) which contain raw data, statistically transformed data,
and graphically transformed data.
The evaluation process consisted of three steps. Step one consisted of
generation of a package which presents the results of quality control procedures,
including the generation of data quality indicators, synopses of statistical indicators,
and the results of technical qualifier inspections. A report on the results of the
performance evaluation standards analyzed by the laboratory was also generated.
Step two was an independent examination of the quality control package and the
performance evaluation sample results by members of the Data Evaluation
Committee. This was followed by a meeting (teleconference) of the Data Evaluation
* HWGWTF Data Evaluation Committee Member
-------
-144-
Committee to discuss the foregoing data and data presentations. These discussions
were to come to a consensus, if possible, concerning the appropriate use of the data
within the context of the HWGWTF objectives. The discussions were also to detect
and discuss specific or general inadequacies of the data and to determine if these
are correctable or inherent in the analytical process.
Preface
The data user should review the pertinent materials contained in the
accompanying reports (2-5). Questions generated in the interpretation of these data
relative to sampling and analysis should be referred to Rich Steimle of the
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force.
I. Site Overview
The Rollins Environmental facility is located in Bridgeport, New Jersey, and
covers approximately 78 acres. It has been in operation since 1969. The facility
has a landfill (now closed), a surface impoundment (closed), an incinerator (in
operation), and RCRA lagoons which take scrubber wastes from the incinerator.
These lagoons are suspected of leaking and are under a corrective action order.
The facility landfill was excavated about 5 or 6 years ago to solidify the wastes and
raise them above the water table by placing a sand bed under the wastes.
There is an upper (25-30 feet deep) aquifer, a middle (68-73 feet deep) semi-
confined aquifer, and a large regional aquifer under the site. Both the upper and
middle aquifer are being pumped and the water- treated to remove contamination.
Twenty-five field samples (sample numbers preceded by an MQA or MQB) plus
nine volatile sampling blanks (001, and 100 through 107) were collected at this
facility. The samples included seven field blanks (001, 100, 102, 103, 105, 106, and
107), three equipment blanks (104, MQA738, and MQB001), a trip blank (MQB002),
and two pairs of duplicate samples (well MW4A, samples MQA736/MQB736 and
MQA743/MQB743 and well W-29, samples MQA739 and MQB011) as well as 18 other
field samples. All samples were designated as low concentration ground-water
samples. All samples were analyzed for all HWGWTF Phase 3 analytes with the
exception of samples 001, and 100 through 107 which were only analyzed volatiles.
II. Evaluation of Quality Control Data and Analytical Data
1.0 Metals
1.1 Metals OC Evaluation
Total and dissolved metal spike recoveries were calculated for twenty-four
metals spiked into two samples (MQB004 and 012). Nineteen total metal average
spike recoveries from these samples were within the data quality objectives (DQOs)
for this Program. The total barium, iron, magnesium, mercury, and thallium average
spike recoveries were outside the DQO with values of 63, 134, 68, 50, and 74
percent, respectively. One of the total aluminum spike recoveries and one of the
total iron spike recoveries were not calculated because the sample results were
greater than four times the amount of spike added. Nine individual total metal
spike recoveries were also outside DQO. This information is listed in Tables 3-la
and 3-2a of Reference 2 as well as in the following Sections.
Twenty-four dissolved metals were also spiked into two samples (MQB004 and
012). Twenty-two of the twenty-four dissolved metal average spike recoveries were
-------
-145-
within the data quality objectives (DQOs) for this Program. Dissolved mercury and
thallium average spike recoveries were outside DQO with values of 50 and 68
percent. Eight individual dissolved metal spike recoveries from these samples were
also outside DQO. One each of the dissolved calcium, magnesium, and sodium spike
recoveries were not calculated because the sample results were greater than four
times the amount of spike added. This information is listed in Tables 3-lb and 3-2b
of Reference 2 as well as in the following Sections.
The calculable average relative percent differences (RPDs) for all metallic
anaiytes, with the exceptions of total aluminum and arsenic, were within Program
DQOs. RPDs were not calculated for about two-thirds of the metal anaiytes because
the concentrations of many of the metals in the field samples used for the RPD
determination were less than the CRDL and thus were not required, or in some
cases, not possible to be calculated.
Required metal analyte analyses were performed on all samples submitted to
the laboratory.
No sample contamination involving the metallic anaiytes was reported in the
laboratory or field blanks.
1.2 Furnace Metals
The quality control for the graphite furnace metals (antimony, arsenic,
cadmium, lead, selenium, and thallium) was generally acceptable.
The total cadmium and lead and the dissolved arsenic, selenium, and thallium
matrix spike recoveries for spiked sample MQB004 were outside DQO with values of
140, 162, 136, 145, and 68 percent, respectively. The total selenium, thallium, and
lead and the dissolved arsenic, lead, and thallium matrix spike recoveries for spiked
sample MQB012 were outside DQO with values of 63, 36, 71, 73, 47, and 68 percent,
respectively. All results for these metals should be considered semi-quantitative at
best except for the total and dissolved lead results which should be considered
qualitative.
The correlation coefficients for the method of standard addition (MSA) analysis
of total antimony in sample MQA744 and total cadmium in samples MQB008, 010, and
025 were below DQO. The correlation coefficients for the MSA analysis of
dissolved arsenic in samples MQA739 and 741 were also below DQO. The total
cadmium result for sample MQB010 and the dissolved arsenic result for sample
MQA741 should be considered qualitative. All other results for the samples and
anaiytes mentioned in this paragraph should not be used.
MSA analyses should have been performed on total cadmium in sample MQA775
and on dissolved lead in samples MQA773 and 783. Results for these metals in
these samples should be considered semi-quantitative at best except for dissolved
lead in sample MQA773 which should be considered qualitative.
The precision for the duplicate injection of dissolved selenium in sample
MQB012 was above DQO. Dissolved selenium results for this sample should not be
used. The analytical (laboratory) spike recovery for dissolved selenium in sample
MQB006 was below DQO. Dissolved selenium results for this sample should be
considered qualitative. The analytical spiked sample results for dissolved selenium
in sample MQB012 were 32 percent above the calibration range. This had no affect
on data usability as the dissolved selenium result for this sample was already judged
unusable.
-------
-146-
The duplicate RPD value for total arsenic in sample MQB012 was above DQO.
Total arsenic results should be considered semi-quantitative.
A continuing calibration verification (CCV) and a continuing calibration blank
(CCB) for cadmium were not analyzed after the analytical instrument was
recalibrated. Both a CCV and a CCB should have been run on the recalibrated
instrument.
CCVs were reported by the laboratory as failed in the analyses for total and
dissolved arsenic and total lead. In some cases the laboratory failed to provide
recalibration, CCV, CCB, and/or raw data. In other cases the CCVs were not
within DQO limits. As a result, total arsenic results for samples MQA745, 749, 750,
and MQB004; dissolved arsenic results for samples MQA749 and MQB004; and total
lead results for samples MQB013 and 014 should be considered semi-quantitative, at
best. Also, dissolved arsenic results for samples MQA741, 743 and MQB012 and total
lead results for samples MQA736 and MQB009 should be considered qualitative.
Field duplicate results for dissolved cadmium in duplicate field sample pair
MQA739/MQB011 and for total lead in pair MQA736/743 were excessive. The
comparative precision of field duplicate results is not used in the evaluation of
sample results. It is not possible to determine the source of this imprecision. The
poor precision may be reflective of sample to sample variation rather than actual
sampling variations. Therefore, field duplicate precision is reported for
informational purposes only.
All dissolved antimony and cadmium results should be considered quantitative.
Total antimony results should be considered quantitative with an exception listed
below. AH total and dissolved antimony and total arsenic results should be
considered semi-quantitative. Dissolved arsenic, total cadmium, and total and
dissolved selenium results, all with exceptions, should also be considered semi-
quantitative. All total and dissolved lead results, dissolved arsenic results for
samples MQA741, 743, and MQB012, total cadmium results for samples MQB008 and
025, and dissolved selenium results for sample MQB006 should be considered
qualitative. Dissolved arsenic results for sample MQA739, total antimony results for
sample MQA744, total cadmium results for samples MQB008 and 025, and dissolved
selenium results for sample MQB012 should not be used. The usability of all
graphite furnace analytes is summarized in Section 4.0 and 4.1 at the end of this
Report.
1.3 ICP Metals
The matrix spike recoveries for dissolved copper and total barium and
magnesium in sample MQB012 and total iron in sample MQB004 were outside DQO
with recoveries of 74, 27, 46, and 134 percent, respectively. As a rule, high spike
recoveries indicate a high bias in the data and low recoveries indicate a low bias.
Dissolved copper and total iron results should be considered semi-quantitative.
Total barium and magnesium results should be considered qualitative.
The low level (twice CRDL) linear range check for all dissolved beryllium,
chromium, cobalt, nickel, silver, and vanadium results and certain of the results for
total beryllium, chromium, cobalt, copper, nickel, silver, vanadium, and zinc
exhibited low recoveries. Also, certain of the total manganese and all of the
dissolved zinc results exhibited high recoveries. See Section B5 of Reference 3 for
a detailed listing of analysis dates, samples affected, and biases. The low level
linear range check is an analysis of a solution with elemental concentrations near
-------
-147-
the detection limit. The range check analysis shows the accuracy which can be
expected by the method for results near the detection limits. The accuracy
reported for these metals is not unexpected.
The duplicate injection RPD for total aluminum in sample MQB012 was greater
than DQO (8290 ug/L was reported in the initial analysis and 3980 ug/L in the
duplicate analysis). Total aluminum results should be considered qualitative.
Sodium results for samples MQB012 and 013 exceeded the linear calibration
range. These samples were diluted and rerun so there was no affect on the data
usability.
Precision results for total and dissolved aluminum and total barium, beryllium,
copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, vanadium, and zinc in field duplicate
sample pair MQA736/743 were excessive. The comparative precision of field
duplicate results is not used in the usability evaluation of sample results. It is not
possible to determine the source of this imprecision. The poor precision may be
reflective of sample to sample variation rather than actual sampling variations.
Therefore, field duplicate precision is reported for informational purposes only.
All total and dissolved beryllium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, manganese, nickel,
potassium, silver, sodium, tin, vanadium, and zinc results should be considered
quantitative. Dissolved aluminum, barium, iron, and magnesium and total copper
results should also be considered quantitative. Total iron and dissolved copper
results should be considered semi-quantitative. Total aluminum, barium, and
magnesium results should be considered qualitative. The usability of all total and
dissolved ICP metal analytes is summarized in Section 4.2 and 4.3 at the end of this
Report.
1.4 Mercury
It was not possible to recover the total and dissolved mercury matrix spikes
from sample MQB012 due to unknown salt interferences. The total and dissolved
mercury results for samples MQB012, 013, 014, and 025 were affected and should not
be used.
Precision results for total mercury in field duplicate sample pair MQA736/743
were excessive. The comparative precision of field duplicate results is not used in
the usability evaluation of sample results. It is not possible to determine the
source of this imprecision. The poor precision may be reflective of sample to
sample variation rather than actual sampling variations. Therefore, field duplicate
precision is reported for informational purposes only.
All mercury results should be considered semi-quantitative with the exceptions
of both total and dissolved results for samples MQB012, 013, 014, and 025 which
should not be used.
2.0 Inorganic and Indicator Analvtes
2.1 Inorganic and Indicator Analvte PC Evaluation
The average spike recoveries of all of the inorganic and indicator analytes,
except for cyanide, were within the accuracy DQOs. Accuracy DQOs have not been
established for the bromide, fluoride, nitrite nitrogen, and sulfide matrix spikes.
-------
-148-
Average RPDs for all inorganic and indicator analytes were within Program
DQOs. The RPDs were not calculated if either one or both of the duplicate values
were less than the CRDL. Precision DQOs have not been established for bromide,
fluoride, nitrite nitrogen, and sulfide.
Requested analyses were performed on all samples for the inorganic and
indicator analytes.
No laboratory blank contamination was reported for any inorganic or indicator
analyte. TOX contamination was found in equipment blank MQBOOl and field blank
MQA738 at concentrations of 23 and 45 ug/L. The TOX CRDL is 5 ug/L.
2.2 Inorganic and Indicator Analvte Data
All results for sulfide, total phenols, TOC, and POX should be considered
quantitative with an acceptable probability of false negatives.
High levels of sulfide in sample MQB012 appear to have interfered with the
matrix spike recovery of cyanide from this sample. Therefore, cyanide results for
samples MQBOOl, 007, and 012, which had high levels of sulfide, should not be used.
All other cyanide results should be considered qualitative.
The spike recoveries for nitrate nitrogen from sample MQB012 and for sulfate
from sample MQB004 were outside DQO with recoveries of 115 and 70 percent. All
results for these analytes should be considered semi-quantitative. Between the
second and third CCVs of the first of the ion chromatography (bromide, chloride,
fluoride, sulfate, and nitrate and nitrite nitrogen) analytical batche, an excessive
number of samples were run. Therefore, all ion chromatography results for samples
MQA738, 745, 750, and MQB004 should be considered semi-quantitative. The holding
times for the nitrate and nitrite nitrogen analyses ranged from 4 to 13 days from
receipt of the samples which is longer than the recommended 48 hour holding time
for unpreserved samples. All nitrate and nitrite nitrogen results should be
considered semi-quantitative. Precision results for chloride, fluoride, and sulfate in
field duplicate sample pair MQA736/743 were excessive. The comparative precision
of field duplicate results is not used in the usability evaluation of sample results.
It is not possible to determine the source of this imprecision. The poor precision
may be reflective of sample to sample variation rather than actual sampling
variations. Therefore, field duplicate precision is reported for informational
purposes only. In summary, bromide, chloride, and fluoride results, with exceptions,
should be considered quantitative. All nitrate and nitrite nitrogen and sulfate
results and bromide, chloride, and fluoride results for samples MQA738, 745, 750,
and MQB004 should be considered semi-quantitative.
Precision results for TOC in field duplicate sample pair MQA736/743 were
excessive. The comparative precision of field duplicate results is not used in the
usability evaluation of sample results. It is not possible to determine the source of
this imprecision. The poor precision may be reflective of sample to sample
variation rather than actual sampling variations. Therefore, field duplicate precision
is reported for informational purposes only. All TOC results should be considered
quantitative.
Calibration verification standards for POC were not analyzed. A POC spike
solution was run during the analytical batch but the "true" value of the spike was
not provided by the laboratory. EPA needs to supply the inorganic laboratory with
a POC calibration verification solution. Until then, the instrument calibration can
not be assessed. The POC holding time ranged from 4 to 13 days. Although the
-------
-149-
EMSL/Las Vegas data reviewers recommend a seven day holding time, the laboratory
has been instructed by the EPA Sample Management Office that a 14 day holding
time is acceptable. Precision results for POC in field duplicate sample pair
MQA739/MQB011 were excessive. The comparative precision of field duplicate
results is not used in the usability evaluation of sample results. It is not possible
to determine the source of this imprecision. The poor precision may be reflective
of sample to sample variation rather than actual sampling variations. Therefore,
field duplicate precision is reported for informational purposes only. The POC
results should be considered qualitative.
The TOX matrix spike recovery from sample MQB012 was high with a value of
128 percent. Due to this all TOX results should be considered semi-quantitative at
best. TOX contamination was found in equipment blank MQB001 and field blank
MQA738 at concentrations of 23 and 45 ug/L. The TOX CRDL is 5 ug/L. As a
HWGWTF convention, all positive TOX results five times the higher concentration or
less should not be used, all TOX results between five and ten times the higher of
the concentrations should be considered qualitative, and all results ten times the
level of contamination or greater, as well as all negative results, should be
considered quantitative (semi-quantitative in this case due to poor spike recovery).
Therefore, TOX results for samples MQA738, 741, 742, MQA001, 006, and 012 should
be considered semi-quantitative, TOX results for samples MQA745 and 750 should be
considered qualitative, and all other TOX results should not be used. Additionally,
high chloride concentrations in samples MQA744, 745, MQB012, 013, 014, and 025
may have enhanced the TOX concentration measured in those samples. The TOX
holding time ranged from 3 to 13 days. Although the EMSL/Las Vegas data
reviewers recommend a seven day holding time,- the laboratory has been instructed
by the EPA Sample Management Office that a 14 day holding time is acceptable.
Precision results for POX in field duplicate sample pair MQA739/MQA011 were
excessive. The comparative precision of field duplicate results is not used in the
usability evaluation of sample results. It is not possible to determine the source of
this imprecision. The poor precision may be reflective of sample to sample
variation rather than actual sampling variations. Therefore, field duplicate precision
is reported for informational purposes only. All POX results should be considered
quantitative.
Samples were analyzed for both carbonate and bicarbonate. The analytical
protocols for these analytes require 24 hour holding times which are nearly
unobtainable using the EPA contract laboratory program (CLP) shipping methods.
Alkalinity results for these samples should be considered qualitative while the
carbonate and bicarbonate results should no be used due to the excessive holding
times. The HWGWTF is Devaluating the holding time requirement.
3.0 Organics and Pesticides
3.1 Organic OC Evaluation
All matrix spike average recoveries were within established Program DQOs for
accuracy. Individual matrix spike recoveries which were outside the accuracy DQO
will be discussed in the appropriate Sections below.
All surrogate spike average recoveries, with the exception of the herbicide
surrogates which were not required or analyzed, were within DQOs for accuracy.
Individual surrogate spike recoveries which were outside the accuracy DQO will be
discussed in the appropriate Sections below.
-------
-150-
All reported matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate average RPDs were within
Program DQOs for precision. Individual matrix spike RPDs which were outside the
precision DQO will be discussed in the appropriate Sections below.
All average surrogate spike RPDs were within DQOs for precision. No
surrogate standard was used or required for the herbicide analysis.
Requested analyses were performed on all samples submitted to the laboratory.
Laboratory (method) and sampling blank contamination was reported for
organics and is discussed in Reference 4 as well as the appropriate Sections below.
Detection limits for the organic fractions are summarized in Reference 4 as
well as the appropriate Sections below.
Organic sample identification numbers MQA025 (well L-2), 026 (well DP-1),
MQB736 (well MW4A), and 743 (well MW4A, duplicate) correspond to inorganic and
dioxin sample numbers MQB025, 026, MQA736, and 743. In this report the sample
numbers used for the inorganics and dioxins will be used throughout and all organic
sample numbers will be corrected to the inorganic and dioxin numbers.
3.2 Volatiles
The analytical laboratory exceeded the volatile holding time of seven days for
all of the volatile samples. Holding times ranged from 3 to 42 days in excess of
the seven day holding time. Negative volatile results for all samples should be
considered unreliable because of this. Positive volatile results should be considered
qualitative.
Acetone contamination was found in sampling blanks 001, 100, 101, 102, 103,
104, 105, 106, 107, MQA738, MQB001, and 002 at concentrations ranging from 1 to
106 ug/L. Additionally, acetone contamination was found in laboratory (method)
blanks MB-5 through MB-8 at concentrations of 1 to 3 ug/L. The acetone CRDL is
10 ug/L. The source of this contamination is not known. All positive acetone
results should not be used due to this blank contamination.
Methylene chloride contamination was found in sampling blanks 103, 104,
MQA738, MQB001, and 002 at concentrations ranging from 1 to 5 ug/L.
Additionally, laboratory (method) blanks MB-1 through MB-4 and MB-6 through MB-
9 contained methylene chloride contamination. This common laboratory contaminant
was present at concentrations of 1 to 3 ug/L. The methylene chloride CRDL is 5
ug/L. The source of this contamination is not known. All positive methylene
chloride results, except those for sample MQB006, should not be used due to this
blank contamination.
Trichlorofluoromethane was found in sampling blank MQA738 at a concentration
of 1 ug/L and l-methoxy-2-propanol was found in sampling blank 001 at a
concentration of 6 ug/L. These results have no impact on data quality as these
compounds were not found in any field samples.
Estimated method detection limits were CRDL for all samples except MQA741,
MQA005, and 012 which were 100, 20, and 33 times CRDL, respectively. Dilution of
these samples was required due to the high concentration of organics. The volatile
compound negative results, with exceptions listed below, should be considered
unreliable due to excessive holding times. All positive methylene chloride results,
except for sample MQB006, and all positive acetone results should not be used due
-------
-151-
to laboratory (method) blank contamination. The probability of false negative
results is unknown due to the lengthy holding times of the samples. The positive
volatile results are probably not an artifact of the lengthy holding times and thus
probability of false positives is acceptable and the positive volatile results should be
considered qualitative and biased low.
3.3 Semivolatiles
Initial and continuing calibrations, tuning and mass calibrations, matrix spikes
and matrix spike duplicates, surrogate spikes, and chromatograms were acceptable
for the semivolatiles.
The analytical laboratory exceeded the semivolatile 40 day holding time
between extraction and analysis for all but two (MQB005 and 008) of the samples.
Holding times ranged from 5 to 25 days in excess of the permitted 40 day holding
time between extraction and analysis. Semivolatile results for these samples should
be considered semi-quantitative at best.
The acid surrogate spike recoveries for phenol-D5, 2-fluorophenol, and 2,4,6-
tribromophenol from samples MQA778 and 778RE (its reanalysis) ranged from no
recovery to 4 percent recovery. These results are outside DQO. The acid fraction
results for sample MQA778 should be considered unreliable.
Two of the semivolatile laboratory (method) blanks, MB-2 and MB-4, contained
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate contamination at concentrations of 3 and 4 ug/L. The
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate CRDL is 10 ug/L. No.positive bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
results should be used. Cyclohexanol, 4-methylphenol, and a trichloro-1-propene
contamination was also detected in MB-2 at concentrations of 9, 11, and 8 ug/L. 4-
Methylphenol results for sample MQB012 should not be used due to this
contamination.
The organic analytical laboratory failed to perform an adequate number of
semivolatile method blank analyses.
The terphenyl-D14 (in sample MQA741), 2-fluorobiphenyl (in sample MQB004),
and phenol-D5 (in sample MQA736) surrogates were out of DQO. This caused no
impact on data usability.
Samples MQA741 and MQB012 were diluted by a factor of 10 prior to analysis.
Due to a dilution factor of 2.0 for all other samples, the estimated detection limits
for the semivolatiles were approximately twice the CRDL.
The semivolatile data are acceptable and the results should be considered semi-
quantitative for all samples with exceptions. Results for samples MQB005 and 006,
with the exception of the bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate results, should be considered
quantitative. All positive bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate results and 4-methylphenol
results for sample MQB012 should not be used due to laboratory blank
contamination.
3.4 Pesticides
The analytical laboratory exceeded the pesticide 40 day holding time between
extraction and analysis for all but two (MQB002 and 014) of the samples. Holding
times ranged from 3 to 9 days in excess of the permitted 40 day holding time
between extraction and analysis.
-------
-152-
Dieldrin was detected in sample MQA739 at a concentration of 0.117 ug/L but
was not reported in that sample by the laboratory.
Dieldrin and kepone were reported in sample MQB012. These may be false
positives as the peaks specified fay the laboratory to be representative of dieldrin
and kepone had retention times slightly outside the laboratory established, retention
time windows.
A large injection peak was present in the laboratory (method) blank
chromatograms. This peak may have interfered with the detection of alpha- and
beta-BHC.
Many pesticides in the internal standards and evaluation mixes were outside
the retention time windows established by the laboratory.
The dibutylchlorendate retention time shift was outside DQO for 45 standards
and samples.
Sample MQA741 was diluted by a factor of 10 and thus the detection limit for
the pesticide fraction in this sample is 10 times the CRDL. The estimated method
detection limits for all other pesticides analyses is the CRDL. The pesticides
results should be considered qualitative with the exceptions of samples MQA739, 741,
and MQB012 which should be considered unreliable.
3.5 Herbicides
The herbicides for which the laboratory analyzed include only 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T,
2,4,5-TP, chlorobenzilate, phorate, disulfoton, parathion, and famphur.
No surrogates were included for the chloro- or phospho-herbicide results.
The quality of the chloro-herbicides chromatograms was not sufficient to allow
the tentative identification and confirmation of these compounds. Several field
samples were reported to contain chloro-herbicides. However, numerous chloro-
herbicide peaks were observed in the method, field, and trip blank chromatograms.
The tentative identification and quantification of chloro-herbicides in all samples
should be considered unreliable due to this blank contamination.
The detection (DBS) and confirmation (DB1) columns used by the laboratory for
the phospho-herbicide analyses were too similar to allow adequate confirmation.
Because of this all positive phospho-herbicide results (only disulfoton and parathion
results reported for sample MQA741) should be considered unreliable. Negative
phospho-herbicide results should be considered qualitative.
The laboratory failed to use the 3-point external standard calibration method
for all herbicides. A one point method was used.
Method 8150 is not adequate for the determination of chlorobenzilate.
Chlorobenzilate could be more accurately determined by using the pesticide method.
Chloro-herbicide standard chromatograms were specified by the laboratory to be
representative of the four chloro-herbicides for which the laboratory analyzed.
However, five peaks were observed in the chromatograms. The fifth peak may have
arisen from the derivatization of chlorobenzilate. There is the possibility that both
the methyl and ethyl esters of chlorobenzilate are formed when using Method 615.
-------
-153-
The negative phospho-herbicide results should be considered qualitative due to
the lack of surrogates. The positive phospho-herbicide results should be considered
unreliable due to the lack of surrogates and inadequate confirmational column
analysis. The chloro-herbicide results should be considered unreliable due to blank
contamination and the absence of surrogate analyses. The estimated method
detection limits were the CRDL for the herbicides.
3.6 Dioxins and Dibenzofurans
Dioxin and dibenzofuran spike recovery from the two native spiked samples
ranged from 88 to 136 percent which is considered to be acceptable accuracy. One
of these samples was inadvertently spiked twice. No performance evaluation
standard was required or evaluated for dioxins and dibenzofurans. The target
analytes were detected in the duplicate field samples for monitoring well 4A so
precision (RPD) information was available for these samples. Target analytes were
not detected in the laboratory duplicate samples so laboratory precision could not
be evaluated. Required dioxin/dibenzofuran analyses were performed on all samples
submitted to the laboratory. No dioxin or dibenzofuran contamination was found in
the laboratory (method) or field blanks. Diphenylether interference (at m/z ratio
410) was observed in the PeCDF window for sample MQQA736.
Due to a method modification supplied to the laboratory by the US EPA
Sample Management Office, the column performance check solution was not analyzed
by the laboratory.
The recovery of the internal standard for-carbon-13 labeled 2,3,7,8-TCDD from
one of the standards was above DQO.
The resolution between carbon-13 labeled 1,2,3,4-TCDD in the recovery
standard and 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the internal standard was above DQO.
Samples MQA736, 739, 742, MQB003, 004, 006, 012, 025, and method blank
CC# 120767 did not meet the DQO requirement for resolution of the percent valley
being less than or equal to 25 percent. The results for these samples should be
considered semi-quantitative at best.
The dioxin and dibenzofuran results should be considered to be semi-
quantitative. The probability of false negative results is acceptable. OCDD, TCDF,
PeCDF, HxCDF, HpCDF, and OCDF were detected in the duplicate field samples
collected from well 4A.
-------
-154-
III. Data Usability Summary
4.0 Graphite Furnace Metals. Total
Quantitative: antimony results with exceptions
Semi-quantitative: all arsenic and thallium results; cadmium and selenium
results with exceptions
Qualitative: all lead results; cadmium results for sample MQB010
Unusable: antimony results for sample MQA744; cadmium results for
samples MQB008 and 025
4.1 Graphite Furnace Metals. Dissolved
Quantitative: all antimony and cadmium results
Semi-quantitative: all thallium results; arsenic and selenium results with
exceptions
Qualitative: all lead results; arsenic results for samples MQA741, 743,
and MQB012; selenium results for sample MQB006
Unusable: arsenic results for sample MQA739; selenium results for
sample MQB012
4.2 ICP Metals. Total
Quantitative: all beryllium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper,
manganese, nickel, potassium, silver, sodium, tin, vanadium,
and zinc results
Semi-quantitative: all iron results
Qualitative: all aluminum, barium, and magnesium results
4.3 ICP Metals. Dissolved
Quantitative: all aluminum, barium, beryllium, calcium, chromium, cobalt,
iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, potassium, silver,
sodium, tin, vanadium, and zinc results
Semi-quantitative: all copper results
4.4 Mercury
Semi-quantitative: mercury results with exceptions
Unusable: total and dissolved mercury results for samples MQB012,
013, 014, and 025
4.5 Inorganic and Indicator Analvtes
Quantitative: all sulfide, total phenols, TOC, and POX results; bromide,
chloride, and fluoride results with exceptions
Semi-quantitative: all nitrate and nitrite nitrogen and sulfate results;
bromide, chloride, and fluoride results for samples MQA738,
745, 750, and MQB004; TOX results for samples MQA738, 741, 742,
MQB001, 006, and 012
Qualitative: all POC and alkalinity results; cyanide results with
exceptions; TOX results for samples MQA745 and 750
-------
-155-
Unusable:
4.6 Oreanics
Quantitative:
TOX results with exceptions; cyanide results for samples
MQBOOl, 007, and 012; all carbonate and bicarbonate results
semivolati\e results for samples MQB005 and 006 with
exceptions listed below
Semi-quantitative: semivolatile results with exceptions
Qualitative: positive volatile results; pesticide results with
exceptions; phospho-herbicide results with exceptions
Unreliable: negative volatile results with exceptions; pesticide
results for sample MQA739, 741, and MQB012; all chloro-
herbicide results; disulfoton and parathion (phospho- herbicides)
Unusable: all positive methylene chloride (a volatile) results,
except for sample MQB006; all positive acetone (a volatile)
results; 4-methylphenol (a semivolatile) results for sample
MQB012; all positive bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (a
semivolatile) results
4.7 Dioxins and Dibenzofurans
Semi-quantitative: all dioxin and dibenzofuran results
-------
-156-
IV. References
1. Organic Analyses: EMSI
2421 West Hillcrest Drive
Newbury Park, CA 91320
(805) 388-5700
Inorganic and Indicator Analyses:
Centec Laboratories
P.O. Box 956
2160 Industrial Drive
Salem, VA 24153
(703) 387-3995
Dioxin/Dibenzofuran Analyses:
CompuChem Laboratories, Inc.
P.O. Box 12652
3308 Chapel Hill/Nelson Highway
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
(919) 549-8263
2. Draft Quality Control Data Evaluation Report (Assessment of the Usability of
the Data Generated) for Case G-2363HQ, Site 49, Rollins, NJ, 5/26/87, Prepared by
Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company, Inc., for the US EPA
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force.
3. Draft Inorganic Data Usability Audit Report, for Case G-2363HQ, Rollins
Environmental, NJ, Prepared by Laboratory Performance Monitoring Group, Lockheed
Engineering and Management Services Co., Las Vegas, Nevada, for US EPA,
EMSL/Las Vegas, 5/27/1987.
4. Draft Organic Data Usability Audit Report, for Case G-2363HQ, Rollins, NJ,
Prepared by Laboratory Performance Monitoring Group, Lockheed Engineering and
Management Services Co., Las Vegas, Nevada, for US EPA, EMSL/Las Vegas,
5/27/1987.
5. Draft PCDD/PCDF (Dioxin/Dibenzofuran) Usability Audit Report, for Case G-
2363HQ, Rollins Environmental, NJ, Prepared by Laboratory Performance Monitoring
Group, Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Co., Las Vegas, Nevada, for
US EPA, EMSL/Las Vegas, 5/21/1987.
-------
-158-
Page No.
02/09/87
ROLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (N!J) . INC.
GHDP INVENTORY
BY L NUMBER
WfiSTE ROW OTY LOB MANIFEST
CODE NUMBER
TOTftL GTY BTU
POUNDS REC
REC
TRTMENT COMMENT
10014
10019
10063
10076
10130
10147
10137
4146
4571
5110
5110
5122
5122
5122
5152
5256
5359
5381
5415
5552
5603
5667
5706
5752
6215
6216
6271
63OO
6321
6321
6323
6366
6402
,648O
648O
6551
66 1O
6610
6674
6715
6763
6763
6769
6769
6769
6821
I
T
I
T
N
N
T
I
T
T
I
I
T
P
I
N
T
12
12
14
11
5
8
9
9
11
14
5
11
11
14
2
5
10
16
11
11
15
17
13
12
a
17
5
10
18
14
17
8
7
8
13
9
2
5
8
14
17
1
2
1
5
6
7
1
8
2
1
1
1
1
•Jf
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
S
^i
a
i
i
4
1
5
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
\
2
1
1
3
2
1
3713
0222
3915
0157
0078
1883
7783
N/tt
3755
N/tt
276
3621
429
3O37
6721
294
493
4157
3786
NJQ0204254 5OOO 10 930O E
NJ00203687 1665 5 139OO V
NJftO 193942 200(1)0 46 2000 E
PftB2919921 328O 11 159OO V
NJft0250S37 1335O 21 64OO E/R/
502
NJftO168571 63O
N/O ISO
1 2OOO R/K
1 SOOO V
N/0
N/fi
1 2OOO R/K
NJW023SO6S 5222 i-> 3.6900 V
N/ft N/fl N/tt 117OO R/K
NOJO178352 32497 72 151OO R/K
NJO0239354 122S £9 30OO T'/K
NJftO134433 1698O 77 11735 R/K
NJ00167158 412 1 93OO V
NJOO16685O 1834 64 2OOO V
NJOO121825 7O45.
MJOOO84128 1069£
N/O
12OO
11 65OO V
23 157OO V
230OO R/K
NJ0018O220 548
4700 V
-------
-159-
Page No. £
OS/09/87
L#
ROLLING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE'S (NJ). INC.
GHDP INVENTORY
BY L NUMBER
WRSTE ROW QTY LflB MANIFEST TOTftL CITY BTU TRTMENT COMMENTS;
CODE NUMBER POUNDS REC
REC
V
6823
6861
6899
6899
6933
6972
6973
6973
7O10
7O1O
7143
7170
7185
7330
7372
7387
7428
7483
7484
7484
7487
7489
7492
7497
75O6
75O6
7519
7555
756G
757O
7571
7571
757 1
7571
7-577
7594
7596
76O7
7612
7612
7621
7632
7640
7650
7656
7656
I
I
X
I
T
T
T
I
N»
I
I
I
C
N
I
1
a
5
8
11
12
10
11
15
17
3
3
17
11
11
13
16
16
16
C.
1 C.'
15
7
3
5
6
7
1-*.
l_
11
3
4
1O
1O
8
7
5
6
12
9
2
13
15
13
16
2 3787
1 O292
i
1
1
2 2277
i
1
C.
1
1 3294
1
1 O15O
1 5372
1
2
1
1
1
1
1 3457
£
2 3456
2 369 1
1
i
l
l
1 1216
1
c!
4
11
• 1
1
5 0216
1 2255
1 1 33O
1 OO27
1
1
1 0046
2
1
1 6576
2
NJfiO 180220 716
NJOO2O1841 4215
NJ8O003155 3165
NY 123 1947 440O
NJflO££313£ 13224
NJMOO77072 2O2 •
NJ00065766 2700
NJRO205931 530
NJ00205931 530
N/fi 7680
NJRO 183964 SOO
NJOOl 51709 1600
NJ023O511 482
NJttO 193349 3O14
NJOOO36663 40O
N/fl 500
NJO01222O1 2400
2 1790O V
20 790O R/L FLIPPER
8 I3OOO V
15 5600 V/R
•
29 1250O V
1 8200 V/,
6 13900 V
f
2 1O70O R/K
1 9 SOO V
24 N/R R/K
2 1360O V
5 197OO V
1 19OOO V/«
121 N/fi K/E LftBPflCL
1 N/fl HOLD FOR RES(Ltt)
2140O R/K
6 20OO R
-------
-160-
Pagtj No.
02/O9/87
ROLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (NJ). INC.
GHDP INVENTORY
BY L NUMBER
WOSTE ROW QTY LflB MANIFEST TOTttL QTY BTU TRTMENT COMMENTS
CODE NUMBER POUNDS REG
REC
7657
7658
7658
7662
7666
7669
7671
7679
7685
7685
7686
77O3
7703
7726
7733
7738
7742
7765
7770
7775
7811
7816
7818
7B38
7838
7838
7855
7866
7866
7866
7867
7868
7868
7869
7869
7869
7872
7872
7872
7896
7926
7953
7954
7956
7967
7967
I
N
I '
I
N
I
N
N
T
I
I
H
P
I
N
I
I
C
T
T
C
9
12
15
8
3
8
4
16
15
18
5
7
3
5
15
11
8
2
5
3
8
11
17
1O
5
11
13
13
a
13
£
3
5
9
9
11
2
11
3
17
17
3
12
1
1
1
26
1
2
5
24
a
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
3
£
1
1
1
1
£
\
1
1
£
" 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•4
1
1
1
1
0£59
3871
34£3
O260
0299
0262
39O4
4447
O879
3 4 £9
1336
796
5382
£448
6541
15C2
5608
3597
1756
1887
NJftO£6O£51
N/ft
NJPI02349O3
N JflO£60£5 1
NJftO£60£5£
NJOO26O251
NJflOO£2984
N/fl
N/fl
NJR0025941
POO63449O3
N JO 146347
NJ00065766
NJfiO 127538
NJR0023659
NJO0151O07
NOJ0057393
NJMO2O4754
NJO2O3O9O
fs'JftO 168571
26OO
N/fl
18OO
600
2£OO
25OO
9OOO
•
3£5c-
3088
64£0
3 1 £O
1894O
450
N / fl
3'.-3o
5OO
33£5
1OOOO
150O
1 1 09O
£6
50
16
'5
22
5
£0
1£
8
14
6
N/i-1
1
45
1
i
95
20
3
29
VlSUfi
160OO
2OOO
89OO
1 55OO
1 1 5OO
£000
:• 1700
.1 9700
10400
60OO
57 OO
SOOo
1,
.'. "ivGuO
137OO
12400
2OOO
£OOO
5. £ 1 OO
KILN FLIPPER
R/K
R/K
R £OGftL/D
R/K
V
V
1 1
R / K
F^/K
,
R/K
y/n
R/i< T1754
f < / K
; \ / i \
h' / i <
R/K
R/K
R/K
R/K
R/K
-------
-161-
Page No.
02/09/87
5
ROLLINS ENVIRONMENTfiL SERVICES
GHDP INVENTORY
-------
Page No.
02/09/87
-162-
ROLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
GHDP INVENTORY
BY L NUMBER
-------
• . ' ' -163-
Page No. 7
02/09/87
ROLLINS ENVIRONMENTflL SERVICES (NJ) . INC.
GHDP INVENTORY
BY L NUMBER
L# WflSTE ROW QTY LflB MflNIFEST TOTflL QTY BTU TRTMENT COMMENTS
CODE NUMBER POUNDS REC
REC
fc
8965
8971
9O47
9091
9117
9151
9189
9£42
9£42
9243
9£49
9249
9287
9288
9311
9311
9352
9409
9409
9409
9442
9456
9475
9485
9486
9486
9521
9533
9556
959O
9607
96O8
9612
9527
9627
9627
9,640
9642
9642
9741
9742
9746
975O
9797
9797
9812
T
T
T
I
I
T
N
N
C
I
I
I
I
I
N
T
T
1
X
I
I
I
T
N
N
T
T
N
I
I
9
7
9
16
£
7
7
16
16
5
16
16
£
6
13
18
3
£
7
11
7
11
7
15
15
16
18
7
12
2
£
a
12
12
13
.18
4
6
9
12
£
5
14
6
9
18
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
a
a
i
2
2
5
1
1
3
4
£
1
1
£
8
3
1
.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
3
4
7
1
1
1
£
4
1
1
6799
312
1732
0023
£487
4046
1327
0738
3469
0302
1217
28O7
0946
951
13^:9
2345
3217
1721
1649
1648
1662
1773
£476
4049
2962
2963
3858
3839
4O47
NJflOO02815
NJflO 1642 12
CTflO0765O5
NJfl012O152
NJflO 173872
NJ00161536
NJfl007££6
NJflO£38865
NJflO 169281
NJflO 183964
N/fl
NJfl01£7517
NJflO 1275 17
NJ00049829
NJflO 1 21 O40
NJflO 12754
NJflO 178O35
NJfl0161536
NJOOO36369
NJflO 1 9O9 1 £
N/fl
NJflO 173872
NJO010O417
NJfl010O417
NJflO1218O5
NJflO 14324O
NJftO 173872
3672O
40O
1666O
35O
1 £00
4OOO
1 OOO
4 1 £8
£OO
4OO
1 37£0
30O
11120
419O
438
£50
45OO
8OO
1034
2O6O
15333
N/fl
4OOO
2OOO
1 OOO
1380
£0590
3O3O
ao
1
31
*
14
£
9
12
1
1
2Q
£
18
1 O
1
X
1
18
£'
4
19
£3
4
a
ul.
46
5
1 1900
£000
940O
1 88OO
8200
1 OOOO
124OO
1 4OOO
1OOOO
185OO
1 740O
13£OO
£OOOO
860O
1 O5OO
5 OOO
1OOOO
16OOO
7 OOO
1 1 9OO
£OOO
128O
72OO
880O
£600
1 30OO
9OOO
114OO
6100
V
V
R/K
R/K
R/K
R/K
R/K
•
V
R/K
R/K
V
R/K
R/K
R/K
V
R/K
V
R/K
K
K
V
R
R/K
R/K
V > SO2
E
V
V
R/K
-------
Page No.
02/03/87
6
-164-
ROLLINS ENVIRONMENTflL SERVICES
GHDP INVENTORY
BY L NUMBER
(NJ) . INC.
L# WftSTE ROW QTY LflB MANIFEST TOTflL CITY BTU TRTMENT COMMENTS
CODE NUMBER POUNDS REC
REC
9845 T
9893 X
9893
9929 I
9973 I
B2358
H20
H2OFM
J1OO
NJDEP
NJDEP
NJDEP
TflC4£
UN50O
UNK
UNK17
UNK2
UNKA6
UNK46
UNK5
UNK55
UNK6
UNK6
UNK8
UNK8
UNK99
W H£O
WttDE
WftDE
WfiDE
WODE
WftDE
«•** Total
7
3
18
18
18
16
7
13
17
12
IB
17
5
16
8
13
9
11
15
12
15
11
13
8
11
18
8
12
13
14
15
18
***
1 £813
1 3484
£
£ 35OO
£ 334O
3-
1
2
1
4
1
1O
1
£
1 -
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
11
-~i
•z.
1
B
NJAOO05S2O £5 N/0 EDUC SOS WL
NJAO1 01080 1956 4 1230O V
NJAOS2O879 10£Ci 3 £0600 V
NJAO2OO155 N/ft 33 16800 R/K LfiBCJO
/ <
4
'
•***
-------
-165-
Page No.
02/09/67
3
ROLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
L# WASTE
CODE
9181
9181
9181
9iS3 P
9189
S258
9287
9311
935O
9537 T
9554
9598
9658 N
9687 T
9823 I
9823
9852
9889
HELPfl
SLUDG
LINK 1 B
UNK27
TYPE ROW
DRUM
4
4
6
6
FIBER 5
1-
4
1
G
6
5
1
5
1
FIBER 5
FIBER 5
4
4
FIBER 6
FIBER 5
4
5
DRUM PAD INVENTORY
BY 1. NUMBER
LfiB MANIFEST TOTAL
NUMBER POUND
REC.
2351 NJftO. 127433 1576O
2438 NJA0049829 428
1942 N/A 180
3442 NJfiOiaiaOl 4UOO
3730 NJAO 132228 653
(NJ). INC.
QTY BTU TF
REC
358 £000 K
!:. £OOO V
\ 2O: <> K
-'3 iH»«..O .-:
5 20'.)0 Hi
TRTMENT COMMENTS
-------
-166-
Page No.
02/09/87
L# WftSTE
CODE
8028
8i£l
8127
8.182
818£
8278
83O2
8310
8337
8339
8339
8339
8347
8372
8402
842O
8420
8444
8456
8480
848O
8500
6584
864O
6663
8677
8716
8718
872G
8741
8743
8769
8778
8791
8890
8«9O
8903
89O5
8938
8963
9023
9048
9O85
9085
9121
9135 C
2
ROLL
TYPE ROW
DRUM
FIBER 3
-~i
l_
6
o
iH
o
6 .
1
7
5
6
7
1
ij.
5
2
4
6
4
1
6
;2
£1
4
2
6
4
5
FIBER 3
7
iZ.
G
.6
iZ.
O
6
G
4
6
5
4
FIBER 1
FIBER 3
6
INS ENVIRONMENTflL SERVICES
DRUM PflD INVENTORY
BY L NUMBER
LfiB MANIFEST TOTfiL
NUMBER POUND
REG.
INNERPLflNT
N/O N/O N/ft
3678 NJO0055206 36650
5881 95OO
6O37 INNER PLttN flLL.
6O65 NJOOO65753 9OO
4972 NJfiOO 14438 13.1 GO
2445 NJftO 166224 42OO
3??O3 NJflO£02846 16251
1168 NJft018O187 19O8
23O8 NJOO 164228 4OO
0224 NJ00239774 N/tt
(NJ). INC.
QTY BTU TRIM
REC
1 14400 K
N/R N/fl R/K
/ '
4
62 6500 V
2 8OOO R/K
fiLL £1000 K
2 150O R/K
B 9500 R/K
14 2OOO R/K
221 N/tt I'v/t:
4 16300 K
1 2OOO R/K
15 1180O R/K
TRTMENT COMMENTS
INTIIRPL
-------
-167-
Page No.
02/09/87
1
ROLLINS ENVIRONMENTOL SERVTCES
DRUM POD INVENTORY
(NJK
INC.
BY L NUMBER
L# WOSTE
CODE
j_
10026 T
10053 P
10076
10076
10114
4047
4149
4493
4619
525O X
5252
5608
5799
6097
6215
6215
6216
6321
61500
6618
6769
6850 I
6899
7178
7386
7389
7455
7539
7577
7587 T
7588
7588
7628
7659
7685
77O3
i
7706
7706
7725
7803 C
7867
7869 I
7886
""7 f^ rt cr
TYPE
DRUM
FIBER
STEEL
FIBER
FIBER
FIBER
FIBER
FIBER
FIBER
FIBER
FIBER
FIBER
FIBER
POILS
ROW
2
5
•*-|
L..
5
3-
3
6
5
£
2
•2
3
5
6
6
4
1
1
6
6
2
4
4
5
5
3
4
3
5
5
.tv
6
1
7
1
3
6
5
6
a
2
LOB
NUMBER
3759
3731
3915
0288
O052
020 1
3962
3977
3974
3620
3621
OOG7
1 558
396O
3726
1749
1958
3871
3394
7637
1750
3782
2O62
1693
MONIFEST
NJOO 140803
NJOO 132228
NJOO 193942
NJ002O1885
NJOO23S88
N/O
NJOO 193475
NJ001£70£5
NJOO 1934 15
NJ00239354
NJO0239354
NJOO 137746
NJOO 13475
NJOO 132228
NJOO 132227
NJOO2123O7
N/fl
NJ00223132
NJOO 132227
NJOO 182456
NJOO 151 007
NJOO 183976
TOTOL
POUND
REC.
530
60
2020O
2024O t
1498O*
572 .
5346
i 350
3070
1557;:1
1225
N/O
20OO
738
346
1202
1 800
N/O
12312
200O
239
1 3055
274
23140
QTY
REC
1
4
JL
88
33
4
33
13
14
L.'. ^J
29
.1.
4
4
i
5
9
IS
27
8
5
40
1
i'-
BTU
1 1 200
2000
2(500
4OOO
1O7OO
4400
139OO
166OO
4
104OO
111OO
3000
78OO
1 7OO
2OOO
47OO
137OO
920O
SO 00
154 GO
4600
111 OO
137OO
62OOO
TRTMENT COMMENTS
V
K
tv
KILN
R/K 3DR/HR
K
K
V
K
R/K
•
R/K
V
R/K
V
V
K
K
V
V OCRYLONIT
R
K
R/K
R/K LOBCDVERO
G
R/K
V
-------
-168-
J. EQUIPMENT — Complete the following table for each piece of equipment involved in the use, manufacture, storage, handling, or generation of the
EHS as described in Section E2. Equipment should include all storage and process vessels. Use the codes indicated on the bottom of Page 2 where
necessary.
EQUIPMENT
DESCRIPTION
l. Storage Tank
2. Storage Tank
. 3. Storage Tank
1 4. Storage Tank
5. Storage Tank
6. Storage Tank
Tank Trailer
7- Unloadi nq Pump
Incinerator
8- Feed Pump
9, Storage Tank
10. Tank Pump
DESIGNATION
"rioi^
noz.""* .
Vf303
* T304' *
T308
T310
P301/302
P307/308
T323
P362
DISTANCE TO
NEAREST
PROPERTY LINE
(Ft.)
280
295
250
280
370
390
280
280
810
810
EQUIPMENT SIZE
Captclty
7000
7000
20000
20000
30000
20000
NA
NA
150,000
NA
Avenge
240
50
Maximum
Unit.
GAL
GAL
GAL
GAL
GAL
GAL
GPM
GPM
GAL
GPM
AGE
OF
EQUIPMENT
lYri.l
8
.8
8
8
1
7
3
3
2
7
EXISTING
AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL DEVICE
Pipe Away Con-
servation Vent
Pipe Away Con-
servation Vent
Pipe Away Con-
servation Vent
Pipe Away Con-
servation Vent
Pipe Away Con-
servation Vent
Pipe Away Con-
servation Vent
NA
NA
Carbon Absorp-
tion Unit '
NA
PERMIT OR !
CERTIFICATE NO
68328 j
68328 f
68328
68328
68328
68328
NA
NA
68328 :
i
j,
NA
COMMENTS
<
fe
I
T 3M
T">O J
Jo ,000
.t.
Ax— ,\f>r.
310, 3u, »-«, T.oj}
-------
-169-
TANK FARM PPMP/QAITGE SHEET
DAI BUDIHQ 2300:.2Ll'
I TANK ! GALLONS/ I
INPMBER,
i
PERCENT J
CONTENTS
I
2300
» Gal.
I
0700
I Gal
1500
I Gal
2;
I
I T-301
60
I
!
i /»r i
XJfc
3O2
60
\\
200
-LJ
200
i/oyoo j
------- |