United State*
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-83/010
September 1983
Superfund
Record of Decision:
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/RO2-83/010
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION:
Price Landfill, NJ
5. REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
D. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
1O. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 "M" Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final ROD Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
800/00
16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The Price Landfill site is located in Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey. It was
.originally a sand and gravel excavation operation which closed in 1968. Starting in
May 1971, the Price landfilling operation began to accept a combination of both
drummed and bulk liquid wastes. Initial listings of wastes consisted of industrial
chemicals, sludges, oil, grease, septic tank grease, and sewer wastes. It is estimated
that 9.1 million gallons of chemical waste were disposed of at the site.
The cost-effective remedial action for this site includes: replacement and
relocation of the Atlantic City Municipal Utilities Authority water supply well
field and transmission facilities and additional analysis of plume management, source
control and treatment remedies. The capital cost for the selected alternative is
estimated to be $5,070,000.
Key Words: Alternative Water Supply, Aquifer Contamination, Plume Migration,
Groundwater Contamination, O&M Costs, Plume Management, Source Control, Aquifer
Contamination, Supplemental ROD
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Record of Decision:
Site Name: Price Landfill, NJ
Contaminated Media: gw, soil
Key Contaminants: oil, grease, sludges,
Sewer/septic tank wastes, industrial
chemicals
21.NO. OF PAOCS
78
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
None
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thilpafe)
None
22. PRICE
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1. REPORT NUMBER
Insert the LFA report number as it appears on the cover of the publication.
2. LEAVE BLANK
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed prominently. Sol subtitle, it' uw.il. in writer
type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add vobme
number and include subtitle for the specific title.
6. REPORT DATE
Each report shall cany a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g.. Jelc uf issue, datraj,
approval, dale of preparation, etc.).
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Leave blank.
7. AUTHOR(S)
Give name(s) in conventional order (John K. Doe, J. Robert Doc. etc.). List author's affiliation if it Jill ITS from the perfurmraj: .ogam-
zation.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of an organi/alional hircarchy.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use the program element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP code.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.
14. SPONSORING AGtNCY CODE
Insert appropriate code.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with. Translation <•!. Presented at cmiicivntv i«K.
To be published in, Supersedes, Supplements, etc.
16. ABSTRACT
Include • brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the re|x»n. II the fi-puri cimlam\a
significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
(a) DESCRIPTORS - Select from the Thesaurus of tnginecnr.g and Scientific Terms the proper iiuihuri/.cU terms that identify the majm
concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used us index entries for cataloging.
(b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS • Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c) COSATl MELD GROUP • I kid and group assignments are to be taken from the IV65 COSATI Subject Category List. Since the Ma-
jority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary I ield/Group assignment!-.) will be specific discipline, area of human
endeavor, or type of physical object. The application!s) will be cross-rclcrcnccd with secondary I tcUI/<.roup assignments thai
the primary posting(s).
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote reusability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Release Unlimited." ( iic any availability to
the public, with address and price.
" " * « '*• f
10. »20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, il any.
22. PRICE
Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
-------
ROD ISSUES ABSTRACT
<•
Site; Price Landfill, New Jersey
Region: II
AA, OSWER
Briefing Date; Septecber 16, 1983
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Price Landfill site is located in Egg Harbor Township, New
Jersey. It was originally a sand and gravel excavation operation which
closed in 1968. Starting in May 1971, the Price landfilling operation
began to accept a combination of both drummed and bulk liquid wastes.
Initial listings of wastes consisted of industrial checicals, sludges,
oil, grease, septic tank grease, and sewer wastes. It is estimated
that 9.1 million gallons of chemical waste were disposed of at the site
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
The cost-effective remedial action for this site includes: re-
placement and relocation of the Atlantic City Municipal Utilities Au-
thority water supply veil field and transmission facilities and
additional analysis of plume management, source control and treatment
remedies. The capital cost for the selected alternative is estimated
to be $5,070,000.
ISSUES AND RESOLUTIONS KEY WORDS
1. All proposed remedial action alternatives . Alternative Water
for this site provided for an alternative Supply
water supply (i.e. new production wells) . Aquifer
since the migration of a contaminated plume Contamination
continues to move in the direction of the . Plume Migration
City's existing well field. Also, addi-
tional summertime demand on the water supply
system will accelerate the plume migration.
The capacity of the alternate water supply
system was deterr.ir-ed based on the City's
total current water consumption without
-------
Price Landfill, New Jersey
September 16, 1983
Continued
ISSUES AND RESOLUTIONS
Development of an alternative water supply
(new veil field) was selected over individual
well bead treatment of contaminated wells
for a variety of reasons, including:
1) continued use of existing wells would not
reduce the rate of plume migration, and
2) treatment (which had high cost and low
reliability) would be necessary for an
extended period because source and plume man-
agecer.t methods would be unable to retract the
pluir.e in less than 10 years.
The existing well field draws on an aquifer
whici. is proposed for designation as a
sole-source aquifer. The state requested
a firr commitment from EPA on remedial
acticr. to protect the aquifer, including
plune management, source control, and
treazrent of the contaminated aquifer. EPA
approved in principle the concept of remedial
acti:r. to protect the aquifer, but deferred a
final decision on the particular alternative
pending the completion of additional cechnical
analysis and conceptual design. A supple-
mental ROD will be submitted upon completion
of tie state technical analysis and evaluation
of plume management and source control
techniques.
KEY WORDS
. Groundwater
Contamination
. O&M Costs
. Plume Management
. Source Control
Aquifer
Contamination
Plume Management
Sole-Source Aqiife:
Source Control
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAfcPROTECTlON AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
Of PICE Or
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Authorization to Proceed with Remedial Actions at the
Price Landfill site, New Jersey — Record of Decision
FROM: William N. Hedeman, Jr.,
Office of Emergency and Remedial fteoponse (WH-548E
TO: Lee M. Thomas,
Assistant Administrator
The attached Record of Decision is presented for your
authorization of remedial action at this site.
We are asking for your approval of the relocation of Atlantic
City's wellfield to an area that will not be threatened by
contamination from Price's Pit. We are also recommending that
you agree with the need to remedy the ground water contamination
at Price's Pit. Our recommended approach to control the plume
requires additional field work and treatability studies. When
the State completes these tasks, a'supplemental ROD will be
presented to you.
The FY-83 funding for this site will include the design for
relocating the wellfield, a treatability study of discharging the
plume to the local POTW, and conceptual design of source treatment
and reinjection. Funding will be required in FY-84 for the
implementation of the wellfield design and, after the supplemental
record of decision, for the final design and implementation of
-------
-2-
On August 19/ 1983, all parties met with the Judge (probably
at the urging of the defendants) to discuss Union Carbide's conanents
on the CDM study and the- Agency's process for selecting -the cost-
effective remedial alternative. The Judge asked EPA if it was
possible to delay a decision on plume and source controls for six
months. This would allow sufficient time for SMC Martin and
Geraghty and Miller to submit their reports. The Judge feels he
has the authority to prevent EPA from implementing any plume
and/or source control remedy in the event we decide against
waiting six months. The Judge has assured EPA that he will not
-------
.
Record of Decision
Remedial Alternative Selection
Slte:
Price Landfill, Egg HQ~bor Township, New Jersey
~n'alyses Revi'3wed:
"
, '
. ' ,. .
!' rlave rev iewed the :'ollowing ,documents which describe the
:',i";,:=.2.',;S:'5 ;,;r C~.5t .;f=a~tiverie'ss' of remedial alternati..c;: at
, ~ . .. :.~~ ft~~ ~roYide relev~nt background
:.~!~rmat.icn..
.,:::~ Eva,i~a~:i9ri ~f:"'~6:~g~;,~.~:R~~O:'~aI'Acti~n Alternati'ves, Price
, Lane,fll!, , Camp Dr:esser. a,nd McKee Inc'. 'April 1983'.
. '
- Staff Summaries and Recommendations.
Description of Selected Option:
- Abandonment of Atlantic City Municipal Utilities Authority
(ACMUA) existing upper and lower Cohansey aquifer water'
supply well field.
- Replacement and relocation of ACMUA water supply wellfield
and transmission fa~ilities so as to provide 13.5 MGD
capacity. '
- In addition to relocation of the wellfield, plume management,
source control, and treatment will also be considered.
Additional information is necessary to select the remedy
to accomplish these objectives. The following studies
will be undertaken to develop the Supplemental Record of
Decision.
1. Collect environmental data on the source and evaluate
source control remedies
2. Implement a monitoring program to validate the
effectiveness of the model and to provide an early
warning system to potentially affected,ptivate '
well users.
3. Determine the treatability of wastes in the Publicly
Owned ~reatment Works.
.'"
. ',,' . ","':';';
, .
-" ..,. ",-,."",,~"-';'--~ ....
-------
2 *
Declarations ;
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response/
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and the
National Contingency Plan, I have determined that an alternate
water supply for the P..ice Landfill site is a cost-effective
remedy, and that it is a key action which is necessary to
effectively mitigate and minimize damage to public; health,
welfare and the environment. I have determined that this
action is appropriate -when balanced against the need to
use Trust Fund money at other sites. • ;
•
I have determined that plume management, source control,
and treatment should be considered and a conceptual design
developed to determine the most cost-effective way to
manage the plume. A supplemental Record of Decision will be
submitted for consideration upon the completion of the State.
of New Jersey's technical analysis and evaluation of plume
management and source control.
KlP
•v i
Lee M. Thomas
-------
Remedial Alternative Selection
Price Landfill Site
Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey
History
The Price Landfill site is located in Egg Harbor Township,
New Jersey. It was originally a sand and gravel excavation
operation which ceased operations -in 1968 when the pit was
excavated to within approximately itwo feet of the existing
water table. At the time, the operation had accepted limited
amounts of construction wastes to 'use as fill material in
closed pits. In 1969 the facility became a commercial municipal
solid waste landfill, accepting larger volumes of wastes.
Starting in May 1971, the Price landfilling operation
began to accept a combination of both drummed and bulk liquid
waste. Initial listings of wastes consisted of industrial
chemicals, sludges, oil, grease, septic tank grease and sewer
wastes. Some of the liquid wastes were placed directly
in the landfill. This was performed by pouring the wastes
into the refuse from an open spigot on a tank truck. The
wastes soaked into the refuse and the underlying soils of the
site. Many other chemical wastes were buried in 55 gallon
drums. Some of these were punctured or opened prior to disposal.
Porous cover material was placed over the filled pits
containing both municipal solid waste and chemical wastes.
Existing data indicate that ground water contamination from
the landfill leachate and chemical dumping has taken place.
It is impossible to determine the total quantities of
waste materials discarded at the site. It has been documented
that over 4.8 million gallons of hazardous waste were disposed
at the site over an eight month period.. Based upon the estimated
duration of dumping at the site it is estimated that 9.1 million
gallons of chemical waste were disposed of at the site.
Prior to the Summer of 1982, as the feasibility study was
being prepared, EPA and the State of New Jersey implemented
several initial remedial measures at the Atlantic City Municipal
Utilities Authority (ACMUA) water treatment plant in the
event the contamination plume reached the ACMUA public water
supply veil field.
Based upon the ongoing monitoring program, the- plume—ha's
not yet reached the ACMUA water supply wells. A portion of
the initial remedial measures taken remain in place to be
utilized in the event of a water supply contamination problem
-------
2 *
Community Relacions
On May 4, 1983, at a public meeting in Egg Harbor Township,
New Jersey, the findings and recommendations of the COM
feasibility study were presented. The community urged the
expeditious implementation of the remedial action and was
concerned about the location of the discharge into Absecon
Creek. The community was assured that the effluent, if
discharged to surface water, would be of high quality and
would meet NPDES permit requirements.
Residents near the site'were concerned about the safety of
home gardening. The State of New Jersey committed to conduct
surface spil sampling to address this concern.
During the public comment period the quality of the
proposed ACMUA well field was questioned. The Agency and
State have investigated this concern and have not found *
evidence of contamination.
Enforcement - See attached.
Current Status
The site continues to be a source of contaminants,
migrating to tne east-northeast toward the Atlantic City
water supply wellfield. On-going monitoring has not yet
detected contamination in the water supply system. Additional
demand on the water supply system is anticipated in the
Summer of 1984 due to the completion of additional hotels in
Atlantic City. This would contribute to the acceleration of
contaminant migration, which is anticipated to reach the
wellfield by the Summer of 1984.
A feasibility study has been prepared by COM evaluating
long-term alternatives for the site. A ground water model of
the area was developed and utilized to simulate and assess
the effectiveness of the various alternatives.
Alternatives Screening
The feasibility study initially considered fifteen
alternatives. The alternatives were screened on the basis
ofi preliminary modeling results, cost estimates, -and an
evaluation of technical and institutional considerations.
The ten alternatives remaining were evaluated for the
noncost criteria of reliability, feasibility of implementation,
operation and maintenance considerations, environmental impact
-------
3 *
When cost and non-cost factors were evaluated, alternatives
13, 14b and 14c (Table 1) were judged to be equally effective
in mitigating the threat to public health, welfare, and the
environment.
Alternative water Supply
All three alternatives provide for an alternative water
supply consisting of new production wells in the lower Cohansey
aquifer north of the city's reservoir and a transmission
main extension to the existing system. These wells will
produce a combined rate of 13.5 MGD, and will replace all of
the existing production wells downgradient of the landfill
in the upper and lower Cohansey.
Ground water modeling and sampling indicates that the
direction of the plume migration is toward the existing
wellfield. The cone of depression from the existing wellfield
accelerates the rate of migration. The relocation of the
wellfield would substantially reduce the rate of migration
in the east-northeast direction and is considered an important
part of a cost-effective plume management system. Individual
wellhead treatment using air stripping and carbon absorption
was considered but was determined to have very high operation
and maintainence costs, relatively low reliability, and
would not effectively control the plume. The protection of
the water supply from the contaminated plume is necessary
since the source and plume control measures will be unable
to retract the plume in less than .ten years and the organic
chemical concentrations are in excess of drinking water
criteria. Relocation of the water supply to other locations
and deeper aquifers was considered but eliminated based upon
the risk of salt water intrusion to the Kirkwood Aquifer and
the State of New Jersey's concern regarding its over-utilization,
Concerns have been raised during the public comment
period about potential water quality problems at the proposed
wellfield location. No contamination was detected during a
ground water quality survey conducted by ACMUA in 1981. EPA
inspections of the site have not determined evidence of
hazardous waste disposal or aquifer contamination problems.
Additional confirmatory sampling and analysis is proposed
for during the design phase under the cooperative agreement.
This monitoring is to provide a more comprehensive profile
of the water quality in the aquifer to assist in the design
of the system. Further steps are being taken to reduce the
potential for aquifer contamination, particularly at the
nearby Federal Aviation Administration's National Aviation
-------
Control of the Source and Plume
The Cohansey aquifer in the vicinity of Prices Pit also
are used by the New Jersey Water Company and local residents.
The State of New Jersey judges the Cohansey to be a valuable
(and threatened) source of drinking water and they are
considering designating the Cohansey as a sole source aquifer.
The water quality impacts of no action would include increase
in the concentration of organic solvents in local surface
waters. Alternatives 13, 14b and 14c, were evaluated and
found to be comparably effective in protecting water supply
uses (other than ACMUA) and restoring the aquifer.
Alternative 13 provides for abatement pumping to be
located_easjt- of the landfill site for extraction of the
plume at a minimum rate of 2 MGD. If pos-sible, based upon
treatability tests off-site, treatment at a local POTW will be
^considered. On-site treatment would consist of iron removal,
'air stripping and granular activated carbon absorption. This
choice will be dependent upon the results of a treatability
study to be conducted during design.
The proposed abatement would provide for withdrawal of
the existing plume and control of further migration from the
source. The 2 MGD abatement pumping rate has been estimated
to be the minimum rate for control of the plume. Although
one abatement well east of the landfill was evaluated -in the
model, optimization of the number of wells and the pumping
rates will be evaluated during the design phase. Under
Alternative 13 pumping is -anticipated to be required for
a minimum of 30 years based upon the estimated source life.
The. plume would be remedied when total volatile organic-"
concentration? do not exceed lOOppb. The estimated costs
of this alternative is:
Capital Cost » $6,010K (To POTW)
O&M Cost - $909K
Total Present Worth - $14,600K
(30 year period)
Alternative 14b provides for the containment of the
source of contamination and extraction of the contaminated
plume. The principal advantage of this alternative is that it
shortens the period of the plume cleanup but requires the
containment of the wastes indefinately. Containment is
provided by the use of a slurry wall to surround the site and
a small interna-l ground water pumping system to produce a
negative gradient across the side walls and underlying
clay. This will provide for leakage toward the source
rather than out of the contained area. This alternative
also provides for the treatment of the ground water contained
-------
and treatment of the plume external to the slurry wall at a
rate of 2 MGD. The period of pumping external to the slurry
wall to effectuate plume control was predicted to be. 10 to 15
y*»arfi. implementation of the ground water cutoff wall is
desirable because it confines the source to a smaller area,
thus decreasing the time and effort required to clear, jp' the
plume. In order to clean up the source and not just to
control it, additional treatment of the ground water contained
within the slurry wall is necessary.
The estimated costs of Alternative I4b are:
Capital Cost » $10,900K (To POTW) , . .
O&M Cost = S909K (Plume for 15 years) :
36K (Source for 30+ years) ,
Total Present,Worth Cost « $18,200K
(30 year period)
•»
Both options provide for cleanup of the contaminant
plume, control of the source area and provision of an
alternate water supply. Alternative 14b provides an
additional positive source control measure with the ground
water cut-off wall. Alternative 13 relies solely on plume
withdrawal wells .to control and clean up the source and to
control and withdraw the existing plume.
Alternative 14c would remedy the plume and would eliminate
the need to maintain source containment indefinitely. These
objectives could be met using several different extraction,
treatment and discharge configurations. One probable approach
is to extract 2 MGD of the contaminated ground water from
within "the slurry wall and treat the ground water before
reinjection into the containment system. Ground water pumping
outside the slurry wall would be discharged to the POTW as
in Alternatives 13 and 14b. The advantage of alternative 14c
over alternative 13 is that it provides for the completion
of on-site remedial action within a shorter time frame and
assures the attainment of treatment objectives.
The estimated costs of this alternative is:
Capital Cost • $14,800K (Plume to POTW &
Source to On-site Treatment) -
O&M cost * S909K (Plume for 15 years)
S947K (Source for 4 years)
Total Present Worth • $24,700K
-------
Recommendation
Alternative 14c is recommended at this time as the'
nr«f«rr«d course of action because it shortens the time
frame for plume management and provides source cleanup.
The relocation of the wellfield will provide a safe source
of drinking water for Atlantic City and will reduce the
rate of migration of the plume. The containment of the
source would further reduce the period of time necessary
to treat th«s plume. Also, the contained source could be
treated over a four 'year period. Remediation of the source
could then be a discrete remedial action and funded 90 per
cent by CERCLA. The State of New Jersey would be responsible
for funding the operation of the plume management system.
Alternative 14c will require further evaluation during
the conceptual design phase of the project to determine the
most efficient way to obtain the treatment objectives.
The State will collect environmental data on the source
and evaluate remedies to control the*source. A monitoring
program will be conducted to validate the effectiveness of
the model* and to provide an early warning system to
potentially affected private well users. Finally, the State
-------
,
.
.
.
.
.-::.~
(/)~:;:}
".
'j
.tI B S l.'CO ,\'
",1 Y ......
'....I..~.'
... :
En,'.onmenta'
..ie,.
. Rem
, .
In'o"","on ,Document,.
1MIfill .
Acllon
. .
! .): ,
Kli. .1 '11' . @
~~~
t=. . ad ttiIi tOad ,.... 1aOi.
CAMP ~..a.:SSEn & McKEE' "'C.
"
,j
',i.
.~
"
.-
Allern.Uve
A"TIRNA"'" HO. t~b
COIIANSEY PRODUC!''''~ Wf;lLS.
2 M.G.D. AOATEMEI UMPING. SLURRY WALLS
-- .-----------_. - .--.---=:o:c=.=
0It8 e~n'.' 'I~I!I
Bo,'on. tAuuchuu'" 02108
"
FI
RE: 3-11
. ,
_.
-------
~ .~. ~-... ~"'.'..
.. ... ..
TABI J
PRICE [AND-'h...., N.J.
EVAUJATIGI 'OF' SEI..t:rrEO ALTERNATIVES
CAPITAL AtHJAL PERIOO OF 30 YR PRESI.:NT PERFOOMANCE RatEDJ AI.. LIFE I
COOT O&H RFMEo[AL ACTIOO WOR11I (~K) CRITERIA OBJErrIVES CYCLE CU>i'
~T IESCRIPTIGJ (~K) (~K) (Y~) (10\ DIscam) (PPB) @ 0\
DIS
-------
PRICE'S LANDFILL/ENFORCEMENT SUMMARY
A RCRA §7003 action was filed on December 22, 3930 against
nine site owners and operators. On September 21, ]98], tn« suit
was amended to add 35 generators and transporters and SI 06 and
§107 CERCLA counts.
On September 23, 1981, the court denied EPA's motion for
injunctive relief under §7003. EPA appealed the decision and
lost. In September ]982, the court ordered all parties back to
court. The case is currently in discovery.
Notice letters were issued to all 44 parties on January 27,
1982. None of the responding parties volunteered to undertake
the necessary response action. Since CDM had already initiated
work on the RI/FS Union Carbide offered to conduct an independent,
peer review of the feasibility study. .EPA did not respond.
The court and all defendants were given copies of the CDM
study on April 25, 1983. On May 24, 1983, notice letters were
issued to all defendants. The letters asked the potentially
responsible parties to voluntarily undertake or pay for the desi
and implementation of the remedial alternative selected in the
feasibility study. The defendants claimed that the feasibility
study did not select a remedial alternative.
On August 1, 1983, all defendants were_notifled that EPA
Regio_n_JI recommended implementation of<^AT.ternative 1&ti\ Select
of Qjj^xwas made by EPA Region II after holding a public hearing.
None of the defendants were given notice of the public hearing.
On August 5, 1983, counsel for the Prices notified Lee Thorn
that the Prices, through their consultant SMC Martin, will submit
a plan for remedial action in 30 to 45 days. The Prices claim
that the CDM report did not adequately consider all the cost-
effective options.
In an August 10, 1983 letter, counsel for Union Carbide
apprised the Judge and the U.S. Attorney that the CDM report was
deficient. The deficiencies are documented in the August 10
letter. Union Carbide does not feel the CDM report should be
considered final. Through their consultants, Geraghty and Miller,
Union Carbide is further defining the scope of additional
investigation that they feel is necessary to correct the deficiencies
-------
Price Landfill, New Jersey
Itemized Funding
Relocate Wellfield
Design $ 660,000 FY-83 IV
Construction 5,200,000 • FY-84 II
Plume Management
Conceptual Design 7.98,000 FY-83 IV
Design - 1,000,000 FY-84 III
------- |