United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-86/032
Sept 1986
£EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
-------
a
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pleale read Inllruclionl on Ihe revene before compleling)
1. REPORT NO. \2. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-86/032
.. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE
SuPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION SeDtember 29. 1986
Combe Fill South Landfill, NJ 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORISI 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
U. S. Environmental protection Agency Final ROD ReDOrt
401 M Street, S.W. 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Wash ington, D.C. 204 60 800/00
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. A8STRACT
The Combe Fill South Landfill site is l~cated in Morr is County, New Jersey, 20 miles
west of Morristown. The site consists of a 115-acre parcel of land owned by the ~ombe
Fill Corporation which contains three separate fill areas comprising 65 acres. Illegal
waste disfQsal is suspected in two fields northwest and southeast of the site. The site
is situated on a hill, causing runoff to drain almost radially from the site. Leacha te ,
ground water and surface runoff constitute the headwaters of Trout Brook, which flows
through Hacklebarney State Park. The brook is stocked wi th trou t and is used for
recreational purposes by park visitors. A large portion of nearby wetlands ar ea was
cleared to construct the landfill. Th e Combe Fill South Landfill was operated for 40
years as a municipal landfill, permitted to accept municipal and non-hazardous
industrial wastes, sewage sludge, septic tank wastes, chemicals and waste oils. Testinc
indicated that the fill mater ial consists mainly of highly decomposed rubbish, and that
no "hot spots" or localized sources of hazardous substances exist. Cover at the site is
extr erne ly poor, leading to infiltration of leachate into underlying aquifers. The
pr imary contaminants of concern are VOCs, including TCE, PCE, toluene, benzene and
methylene chloride, which have contaminated the shallow and deep aquifers that are the
primary source of potable wa ter for local residents.
(See Attached Sheet)
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSA TI Field/Group
Record of Decis ion
Combe Fill South Landfill, NJ
Contaminated Media: gw, sw, air, so il,
sediments
Key con taminan ts: VOCs, benzene, TCE,
PCE, toluene
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS (Tllis Repo,r/ 21. NO. OF PAGES
None 92
20. SECURITY CLASS IT/lis pagel 22. PRICE
None
EPA 110,",2220-1 (R.". 4-77)
PREVIOUS EDITION I' OIlSOI..ET£
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-86/032
Combe Fill South L/F, NJ
.J
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
The selected remedial action for the Combe Fill South site includes: an
alternate water supply for affected residences; capping of the 65-acre
landfill in accordance with RCRA requirements; active gas collection and
treatment system; pumping and onsite treatment of shallow ground water ana
leachate with discharge to Trout Brook; surface water controls to
accommodate seasonal precipitation and storm runoff; site fencing;
monitoring to ensure remedial action effectiveness; and a supplemental FS to
evaluate the need for deep aquifer remediation. Estimated capital cost of
the remedial action is $46,060,700 with annual O&M costs approximately
$673,000 for the first 5 years.
.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
REM~DrA4 ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Site
Combe Fill South Landfill, Morris County, New Jersey
Documents Reviewed
I am basing my decision on the following documents, which
provide a comprehensive p~rspective on the Combe Fill South
Landfill and a thorough analysis of the remedial alternatives
considered for the site:
- Technical reports and results of investigations and sampling
by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection over
the last several years
- Final Remedial Investigation Report, Combe Fill South Landfill,
prepared by Lawler, Matusky and Skelly Engineers, May 1986
- Draft Feasibility Study Report, Combe Fill South Landfill,
.
prepared by Lawler, Matusky and Skelly Engineers, May 1986
- Evaluation of Alternate Water Supply, Combe Fill South Landfill,
prepared by Lawler, Matusky and Skelly Engineers, July 1986
- Responsiveness Summary to address comments received from the.
public, August 1986
- Staff summaries and recommendations
Description of Selected Remedy
- An alternate water supply for affected residences
- Capping of the 65-acre landfill in accordance with Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act requirements
- An active collection and treatment system for landfill gases
- Pumping and on-site treatment of shallow ground water and
leachate, with discharge to Trout Brook
b .
- Surface water controls to accommodate seasonal precipitation
and storm runoff
- Security fencing to restrict site access
- Appropriate environmental monitoring to ensure the effective-
ness of the remedial action
- A supplemental feasibility study to evaluate the need for
-------
--- -~._-_._--
-2-
Declarations
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of ~980, and the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR
Part 300),- I have determined that the alternative described
herein is a permanent remedy that will control the source of
contamination and mitigate off-site migration of contaminants.
r have further determined that this remedy is a cost-effective
alternative that is both technologically feasible and reliable.
It effectively mitigates and minimizes threats to and provides
adequate protection of pUblic health and the environment. At
the same time, it meets all applicable and relevant Federal and
State public health and environmental requirements. Further-
more, the selected remedy is appropriate when balanced against
the availability of Trust Fund monies for use at other sites.
The State of New Jersey has been consulted and agrees with the
selected remedy.
.
SfIJi~.'18H (7, {fJb
I
(14 j. 6],:tt-
Christopher J. Daggett
Regional Administrator
-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
COMBE FILL SOUTH LANDFILL SITE
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Combe Fill South Landfill site is located in Chester and
Washington Townships, Morris County, New Jersey, approximately
20 miles west of Morristown (Figure 1). This inactive municipal
landfill is located off Parker Road about two miles southwest
of the Borough of Chester. Of:the lIS-acre parcel owned by the
Combe Fill Corporation (CFC), the site consists of three separate
fill areas covering about 65 acres. Illegal waste disposal is
suspected in two fields northwest and southeast of the site
proper.
Because it is situated on a hill, surface waters drain almost
radially from the site. Landfill leachate, ground water, and
surface runoff from the southern portion of the site constitute
the headwaters of Trout Brook, which flows southeast toward the
Lamington (Black) River. Southwest of the site, near the
headwaters of the west branch of Trout Brook, is a hardwood
wetlands. Much of the original wetlands was cleared to construct
the landfill.
A series of county and state park segments, including those
of the Black River County Park and Hacklebarney State Park, are
located east and south of the site along the Black River (Figure
2). These parks border both sides of the Black River between.
Route 24 and the Hunterdon County border. Each spring, the
segment of Trout Brook within Hacklebarney State Park is stocked
with trout by the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection ("NJDEP" or "the Department").
b
The site lies in the Piedmont Physiographic Province. In New
Jersey, this province is known as "The Highlands" and consists
of a 20-mile wide series of northeast-to-southwest trending
ridges and valleys extending from the Hudson Highlands of New
YorK to the Reading Prong Region of pennsylvania. In the area,
natural unconsolidated deposits of local soils and granitic
saprolite overlie highly fractured granite bedrock. A shallow
aquifer exists in the saprolite layer, saturating much of the
waste, with a deeper aquifer in the fractured bedrock.
The deep aquifer is the major source of potable water in the
vicinity of the landfill. Numerous residential wells within
one mile of the site draw water from this aquifer. NJDEP records
indicate that there are six public wells within two miles of
the landfill, all of which tap the deep aquifer. The nearest
municipal well is about one mile southwest of the site. In
localized areas, the soils and saprolite overlying the bedrock
-------
-. "-.--.-- -
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
i
v
Mil.'
-2-
Morris County
Un.
o
5
.,
""
"
'"
'"
'"
""
'"
'"
""
""
'"
'"
Mil..
Rgur.
1.
-------
~
~
I
/'~
,1/' .
. r
".- ......__..~., \
.-. .f ",of !O..,
.,.,,:/ .~&"....£ItSt-
.. - ','y.,.""". 'I (
- . £ItD"-'
O:v .
Mlr-'<; VALLEY H U N E R D 0 N
c 01 u N T Y
-------
---~-~----
-4-
Accordingly, ground water wells often tap into the interface
between tne saprolite and the bedrock.
Fill height is 60-80 feet above the ground surface in the three
disposal areas. These areas are punctuated with rifts and
leachate seeps, which flow from the steeply graded side slopes.
An abandoned workshop area strewn with empty rusty tanks,
barrels, and large pieces of machinery lies next to the northern
fill area, along with empty drums and loose garbage.
Existing cover at the site is poor. and consists of coarse and
permeable local soils and crushed rock. Erosion has occurred
in many areas, exposing wastes. Severe erosion has OCcurred
along the eastern, southern, and western slopes of the new fill
areas. Major rifts exist in the northern, central, and southern
portions of the site.
SITE HISTORY
The Combe Fill South Landfill was originally approved by the
NJDEP for the disposal of municipal and non-hazardous industrial
wastes, sewage sludge, septic tank wastes, chemicals, and waste
oils, as stated in its certificate of registration. However,
few data are available to document either the types or volumes
of wastes actually received.
According to NJDEP files, wastes accepted at the landfill during
its 40 years of operation included typical household wastes,
pharmaceutical products, calcium oxide, crushed containers of
paints and dyes, aerosol product canisters, industrial wastes,
.dead animals, sewage sludge, septic tank wastes, chemicals,
waste oils, and possibly asbestos. Numerous empty 55-gallon
oil drums were scattered across the landfill surface. The
majority of wastes that were encountered during field recon-
naissance, drilling operations, and test pit excavations inclu-
ded typical household wastes (garbage bags, paper, appliances,
etc.) and non-hazardous industrial wastes (plastic, wire,
metal frames, etc.). Refuse encountered during the drilling
of a well that penetrated the center of the landfill appeared
to be highly decomposed rubbish. Hazardous materials were not
found at the surface of the landfill during field operations.
Based on the original landfill design drawings and records of
waste volumes received on-site, approximately five million cubic
yards (5,000,000 CY) of waste material are buried in the Combe
Fill South Landfill. No documentation or evidence has been
found to support local residents' complaints of unauthorized
disposal of hazardous materials outside the site proper. The
wastes present are well-mixed and no "hot spots" or localized
Sources of hazardous substances were detected in the landfill.
-------
-------
-5-
A leachate collection and recycling system was in operation from
1973 to 1976, but was not maintained nor was any treatment afford-
ed the collected leachate. In fact, whether recycling involved
recharge basins or direct discharge onto the ground is unknown,
due to the scarcity of historical information on site operations.
When the landfill closed in 1981, little if any final cover was
applied. Subsequent severe erosion of the landfill surface
contributed to the infiltration of leachate into the aquifers
underlying the site.
Land use in the vicinity of the landfill is primarily low-density
residential (lot sizes are generally more than two acres) amid
large parcels of cleared rolling hills. Although some horse
husbandry and vegetable, grain, and orchard farming are done in
the area, most farmlands are now unused. A few commercial
establishments and a nursery school are located on Parker Road
within one mile of the landfill. The Hacklebarney iron mines,
now abandoned, lie south and east of the site. High iron
concentrations, which stem from"natural sources, characterize
the area's soils, surface waters, and ground water.
In March 1981, using the boundaries delineated in Combe Fill
Corporation's (CFC's) 1972 application for registration, NJDEP
identified approximately 34 acres of the Combe Fill South
property as hardwood wetlands. This area constitutes the
headwaters of the west branch of Trout Brook. Most of this
wetland area (about 20 acres) has been sold and is no longer a
part of the landfill property. The remaining wetland acreage
still owned by CFC forms the western border of the site, along
the west branch of Trout Brook. As mentioned above, part of
the or:ginal wetlands was destroyed to construct the landfill.
CURRENT SITE STATUS
D
The Remedial Investigation (RI) conducted at the site revealed
the presence of a wide range of contaminants, consistent with
the known uses of the site and the variety of wastes accepted
there. Nearly all of the chemicals of concern found at the
site are volatile organic compounds (Table 1). Because the
ground water represents the major exposure pathway, the sub-
stances listed are those found in significant concentrations in
either the shallow or the deep aquifer. Appendices A through I
list the major hazardous substances found in each of the
various media: air, surface water, ground water (shallow and
deep), soils (hand-auger and boring samples), and sediments.
-------
-- ----_.~----------~-------
-6-
TABLE 1
CHEMICALS OF CONCERN
COMBE FILL SOUTH LANDFILL
Shallow Aquifer
Concentration Range (ppb)
Benzene
64.7/80.2
18.2-30.3
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
ND or BMDL
.
Toluene
68.2/1370
57.5
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
4.44-56.0
Trichloroethylene
4.04
. Tetrachloroethylene
ND or BMDL
1,I-dich1oroethane
51.4/65.2
62
Chloroethane
1,4-dichlorobenzene
10.1/39.4
7.25/9.77
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
6.1
Trans-l,2-dichloroethylene
8.02
Nickel (ppm)
0.02/0.03
ND = Not Detected
BMDL = Below Method Detection Limit
Deep Aquifer
16.9-252
9.88/10.8
11.7/34.2
1140
82.6-209
5.92-176
2.72-56.8
5.58-14.3
6.41-30.2
22.5/74.3
14.2
1. 92/5.58
4.54-40.5
5.40-47.5
0.02
-------
--~----_.
...7-
The overall site problems and actual or potential contaminant
pathways are listed in Table 2. Public health and environmental
objectives were identified for site remediation, based on the
characterization of the site and the- associated exposure pathways.
The RI produced three major findings:
1 .
The ground water beneath the site has been contaminated by
hazardous substances emanating from and traceable to the
site. Both the shallow (saprolite) and the deep (fractured
bedrock) aquifers have been affected.
2.
Potable residential wells northeast of the site, along Parker
Road and Schoolhouse Lane, have already been contaminated
with various chemicals that have migrated off-site.
3.
Other wells farther downgradient of the site (i.e., in
several different directions) are at risk due to the con-
tinued off-site migration of the contaminated ground water.
Although much of the fill materjal is 60-80 feet above the ground
surface, the water table is also relatively high. As such,
some of the waste is saturated much of the time. Contaminants
from the site have moved downward into the deep aquifer and
dispersed in several directions with the ground water--largely
to the northeast and southwest, but also to the east and south-
east (Figure 3). In the case of volatile organics, a distinct
finger of the plume extends northeast parallel to Parker Road
toward the western end of Schoolhouse Lane (Figure 4).
The natural soils found in the area and used to mix and cover
the wastes at the site are generally well-drained, especially
the Edneyville series. Overall, the underlying saprolite is
highly permeable, as well. Due to the combination of leachable
contaminated soil, permeable saprolite and a high water table,
ground water is the primary means of contaminant migration.
Figure 5 shows the stratigraphy and water table under the major
(most recently used) fill area.
ENFORCEMENT
o
The State of New Jersey and EPA have identified numerous
potentially responsible parties (PRP's), including Combe Fill
Corporation (CFC) and its parent company, Combustion Equipment
Associates (CEA). CFC declared bankruptcy in October 1981, one
month before the landfill was officially closed. A bankruptcy
hearing was held on December 22, 1982.
On October 5, 1983, Notice Letters were sent out to 97 PRP's
regarding a proposed RI/FS at the site. None of the 87
-------
-8-
TABLE 2'
SITE PROBLEMS AND POTENTIAL PATHWAYS OF CONTAMINATION
COMBE FILL SOUTH LANDFILL
SITE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
Expased debris due to. insufficient caver
Rifts, leachate seeps, and swampy areas
Unrestricted public access
Steep slapes with no. stabilizatian
CONTAMINANT PATHWAYS
1.
Air
.
o Emissians af methane and valatile arganics: dust and
particulate emissians due to. paar caver
2.
Graund Water (Primary Pathway)
o Graund water discharge to. surface via leachate seeps
o Gro.und water cantaminatian in shallaw aquifer fram leachate,
passibly maving aff-site
o Graund water cantaminatian af deep aquifer, passibl} maving
aff-site
3 .
Surface Water
o Unrestricted surface water runaff maving cantaminatio.n
off-site
o Discharge af leachate seeps and cantaminated graund water to.
surface waters leaving site
4.
Sails/Sediment
u
-------
--
" /
-9-
/
",'"
"
,~
-
/"
,. r'
, .-
,; ,
. -
.....
"
I ' .,
; ..
,
0
. .,
.. 0 ~
..- ~ 0
..
"
-------
-10-
SCHOOLHOUSE LANE
100-ppb Isopleth
for Total Volatile
Organic Compounds
C)
d
I>
-------
..
..
..
...
z
z'
o
..
c
>
..
~
..'
a
~
Present Ground Surface
A
I
.....
.....
I
Surface
Height
Landfill Excavation
A'
0-1
0-8
0-1
800
0-7
800
ROAD
. . .. ." ~ . -.:,." . eo ".' ~ .(1-" .. .: ..tI ...~. ~ ~ ", ,. . ,. . '. - I : ~ .~ ~ 'C:o
8.0 ,'., : '" PI ,",' )".'..,~ ,PILL ,~~./.""":----~1.--:,"", ..(Ii'!>",'
":'ii:~:~h:~;.\ ~': 7~ ~:-::'-'( ;t~;~.:' '<.,:" ~:::',~-:~~;~::C.t:~. >:. ".-.. . . . ..=-
~)..;),-.'~~\.-:"":'''LL:. ,"..,' "",.,-"",..,."-:D' I,~ ',' ,~'~I..',"~\,: .', .:'.'~!!.OR~YELLY8A_:':'.:..,.." 1 8AIIDYCLAYlYIIL
..--"''''-'. ..JL: ,,', \ ~-:-: ". t' ~ '9" ',r,':". r.": ". ~"\.,"'.::::'..,,..~~, ~ ~,!.. \. "':'~'~;..,;,: ~':-: "..+:',',:-", '", "
,'~-=- 0.: Q~ "":",.,,,.;q, ".~~~" ~,. '", ~f~!" 'r,'\-'/,'r\ ref r,'.""~ If, '~i'V~..fO'f, I .... ~i .~:"""';i""': :"7'_0 """':.~~': ,'.". ' .
'!f~":".AIIO -'-~._~.-0r~~/ r'-';"}M'~,'/e:', \"~,.:::,\,I, Z Z f l'eJ::.::., "; O,:',""., \~I,~~~, rr\;r Q (, IF} '(~ J}- J IANOUft I~':.!I r! J,' }f8i,t;, 7)f r~ I''''''---;~ ~ -:; -; eO:" ~~:,:,.i .!... "':"
"Fo",,.'H~ "8.PltOLln,('r:) /~" ,_,-,h-,-,'-' /' Ir -rr \., -'o)'\'rt 1\\~.' AIANOL _f..I,'f ,. -:-'8{r...."...=a=
f......." - - ",_"_,,_,,,-,~~,~!.-,~,-,:!.-,~\_,~'-'~'-'~\_'~I ,'-'~'-'~'-'~'-'~'-'~~"!.-"'-"_'_"_"_'- , - - \., r~\ -~ r' 1.:\(-..' r ,.,- .-~Io'r I~ l.r,..... "'.rr~:,J I ~'",-!.,
-,:-,., -.,', -,:-..'.-..'.,-.!.,.t.". ,."."."."."."."."."."."., .""""",.,--,',..,',.."."."."",."""".""--",,,."., ,.," f r.1 .... I r",.r ""-,r r "J I I' ~ r '.APllOUT8
:,~.:,~:,~ ~:,~.:,~'\"~'~'~I"~'-','..-,~'..-"{,~'..-,~'..-,~~,~'..-,~'..-,~'..-,~'..-,,~,~'..- "'..-'~'-'~'- ~'-'~'..-'~'-'~'-'~'..-":"I'-' I'..-'~""~'-"'-'~'..-'~'-'~'..-'I'..'~ '.. '~'..-'~'..-'~'-"'-':'-' ,'1'..-"'..'1'...'1'_'1'..."'..-' ,'... '- ,- -, - '\ , .L I ".r;;-" i) f . 1 r ~ \ r. I' ,
:,,,,,.2 ~'2~. '..:~':::;- :,"" ..',',.'::,'-,-",~-.:,"";{,~: :,-",~..' :'-'-" :'-'-'-''-,-''''-,-''''-,-'' ,~-" ,'-,-",'-,.,'~\' ,';;,' ,-.,,'-,"',""'-"~~"''.,.''~-'',y<,',.,-:,~'''''','{.',~..;.',,-..,y ',~{,~-. ',~ .:,~..',~ -",~-",'{:,'-, .",' ',~ -",~.\','-,.:,'-, -",'-,"',y:,'{",~..','-, ',','-,.:,~ -",~.{,',-",~','..;'.', ;'" ~";,~; \ - , , , _., ......, ~. i'..~, i' I
-,,---!.:;,'- ,,-;,'.:;,'.,;,'.,,,-,;,.;,.,,-;,.,,.,,;,.,; ,.;,.:;...".,..'; ,.".:;.,.".;,.~ ." QIIAMTI HDltOCIt"-;""-' .....:;..- ,.,.:;., ~,':;,.';,-'; ,." '1"';'."'';' "., "".".;--;--1'.1 "".".".1' .".;, ""1' :,;,.:; "1'" h""'.".;'':;'. "., ".,.,.~
~~.{ ~.~~. ~J; --:.'-;~.~ ~ ~~.~~.~ ~.~~o~ ~.~ ~.;',;.~ '..'.~ ~.~ ~.~ ~.~ ~~ ~~ '.!.~'J.; ~.~~.'-, ~.; ~., .:., .:~; ,., ,. ~ ~., ',.~~'.!,.; :,.~ '/,.\,:.~'J ~ 1.; '/,.',1.; 1.'-, 1.~ 1.; ~~ '..'.; '.. ,1.'-.':'.~--:'-~ 1.~ 1.\ ':.~ -;. ::-:'- '-,1.'-,'..'.'-,'/_'-,1. ';'J.'-, '~.'-; -:-.'-, 'J.'-, 'J.; 'J.'-, 'J ~,-:.';-:'-'-, 'J.; 'J ~,1.~ 'J ~11.', ; 'J.;1.;1.:
-:1 {~'...--: :I.~ QIIAJIIT8 HDltOCll.~',,'.; ~.~ !.;'~.~ '..~.; ~.'-, 'J.; 1.'-, '?'I --:.; 1.; 1.~ 1 ~ ' ~--:- ~;--:.'-,--:'.; 1.; 1~ '.;~ '..'.; '..;:;'-:.~;'..;:I 1.; 1.'-, 1.'-, '..'.; ~.; 1.'-, 1:,1 ~,'J].;::-;,", 11~, QII~T. HDIIOCI( ~.; '..'.; 1.'-, 1.'-, 'J.; -:,-'-,--:'.'-;~l-, '..'.'-, --:.~ ~.'-, 1.; ~.';'J.; 1:;~~;1.'-,1 ~,~.; ; ~ ~~-';;;I
-.-.. ~:~ ~~~':.: 1.,-;'..~~~~.-':'~.~ 1 f.'J.~'J.~ --:.~ '..'.; ~.;1.~ 'J.'-. 1 ~;1.,-; 'J:'-' 1 ~ 1 ~ 1.'-. 'J-'-;~.; 1 ~ ,'.~ ~.,-;1.'-, 1.; 1.; 'J J;:,.'-; ~.; ',,1.'-; '..'.; '..'.; '..~.; 1~,1 ~ 1_; '..'.'-; 'J.'-, ~.; 1.~ 'J.; '..;~ '.. -;'..~.;'J.,-;1.,-;~5, 1.~~.~ 1.~ '..' ~ 'J.; 1.'-, --:. '; 'J ~ 1.~ --:.; 'J.; '..;.~--:.~ 'J.; ~:,'/.'-, ~.'-, ~:;~:;~ .;~.;'..'.~' '; HOII
~~~~'~I ,~~~~,~~~,~;~,~~~~~~~~~'~~~'~'~~~~~'~I~;~'~;~~~~~~~~~'~/~/~I~I~I~I~~~'~I'.."'.."~~~'~'~I~ ~'~'~'~''''''~'~I~I~I~I~,~'~'~;~'~~~I~~~I~I~;~'~I~I~/~~~ 0/~,'...'i!
'{ ,"".:,'.''',",:; ""-",',..,'~-",""..',....-.-," -" ,,,,,.:,~.\, ,.,.:,~ -",~ -",'-,': ,'-,.:''-,-'','-,'.'_'-,'\''~-''''-,-'','-,.''''-,.:'\-'',\ -."'-"\,,\-,,-\.,,,'-,-",W..,~-..,,":.::,-,,,y:,~ -..,~.:,~ -",'":-",'-, -" ,~'.',~-":,-",'-, -",~-.-: ,-.',' ',y.',~':,~ -",'-, -..:.-, i',y:,'-, i',y.-,',-.-,':;:,'-, i',y,',~ i'::;",~ .",~-":;i':{"_'-, -",'-,',- ,'-,':,~-",~-",Y:,'-,-",'-,.:, :,'-,,','-,', '..'-,i
- ,'.:- ':., ,.'; .:.; "'1 ,'.,;':.:; -.!., ,'., .:., ,.; "'1 '."'1 ,.;,.:;.,.:;,., ,.';, .:;,., '.".;'.1 "1 --,;,:,;,., ,.; ':v. ".'''-;';;';1 ,.'; ,.";,., ,., ,."; '-'"; ,.-;, .".".,)., ,.".;..;, .";,.; ,.; --; ,.:; ,., ,. -;,., ,."., ,.; ,.,.., ,., ,."., ,.; ,.; ,.;, .;,."., ,."., , ,., _.;'-:
'~j~'~~~~~~~'~'~~~/~~~'~'~'~~~/~'~'~~~/~j~/~j~'~/~/~j~,~j~~~/f,/~/~/~/~~~~~~~~~~~,~~~~~~j~,~~~~~~~~~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~j~,~~~~~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~/~/~~~:~ :/~'~/~
- ,., ,., ,. ". ". ". ,'. ,., '" ,-,'., ,., ,.,..,", ,."."."., ,."., ,.". ,'."" '" ,., ,. ,",' ,.., ,. "., ,.". ". "., ,., '., ,-, ,. ".". ,'.,' -, ,."., ,., ..,'."., """ ,-"., ,."."."., ,."."."., ""','" '., ,.," ,",' . ".".,' .,.. ,'-
:(" '..-'~ ...'~ ...~~... ~/'" ~I ~ './ ~~I '.- -:~ '- :-!.'-. '!.'-. ~.'..- --:'- '-; !:-":.~ 'J.'-;--:.~'!:'-' 1.,-; 1::; ':-',1:,1 ~;'..~ .0;1.~ 1); --;:;~.'-, 1.~ 'J.,'J ~~.';~.'; 1-';1~1.;1:'~:-; ~~,;1.;1.'; --:.; -;'.; ~.;1:;,J.'-, 1.,-;'J.; 1.; ',,~; -;,:; ~.;~ .'-;1.;";:, 1.~ 1.; '..;:;:-.; ~.; ~ l; ~.'-;'.!-'; ~~ 1~ ~:;~-'-,'..'.; 1.,; --:'~'"I:,~.'; I?; -;':,1:-;1..!
. . . , . ,; , ,. ,;. ,..,-- I"t.,..,..,.. "h'.. '.h'h'h~'...', ...~, ...~"~, ,.-; , ,-,;\ ,f.h~\,~\,~"'j\'~"~"~\'~\:'~'."'~':-I,,,j\,,',~',~,/~,,~,,~~",.' I~~ I~~,~~'I'.,.."':/'...~~~~J'...':/~~~'..:":.J_'...~/..~::..~J
800
.00
TaO
780
700
700
..0
..0
'.00
..0
SECTION
A-A'
-------
-12-
On November 21, 1983, EPA entered into a Cooperative Agreement
with the NJDEP making Superfund money available to conduct the
RI/FS at the landfill.
On January 22, 1986, EPA filed an application in Bankruptcy
Court seeking reimbursement of Superfund monies spent to date
at the landfill from CFC, a debtor in Bankruptcy. Because of
the limited funds remaining in the bankrupt's estate, EPA and
Combe Fill Corporation reached a tentative settlement of the
Superfund claims in May 1986. -To date, EPA has not initiated
any enforcement actions against any other potentially respons-
ible parties, including CEA.
DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
The following process was used to produce the remedial alterna-
tives considered for the Combe Fill South Landfill:
- Identify general technical r~ponse categories and determine
those that are appropriate to address the public health and
environmental concerns associated with a particular site;
- Develop and screen a comprehensive list of remedial technologies
to select those appropriate for the site;
- Integrate successfully screened technologies into remedial
components and finally into complete remedial alternatives;
- Screen alternatives according to cost, feasibility, and effect-
iveness.
Successfully screened alternatives were evaluated in detail to
determine the most appropriate remedy for the site. This
procedure is discussed in a separate section.
For the Combe Fill South site, the primary remedial objective
is to control the release of contaminants from the landfill.
Based on the general exposure pathways identified, more specific
objectives were established:
Mitigate off-site migration of contaminated ground water in
both aquifers
- Mitigate leachate contamination of ground water
- Mitigate runoff of contaminated surface water
- Mitigate off-site dispersal of airborne contaminants
- Minimize potential for exposure to contaminants
- Restrict site access
-------
-13-
The remedial measures developed were designed to alleviate the
public health risks and potential environmental impacts associated
with the' landfill wastes.
The RI findings were used to develop remedial objectives dealing
with both public health and the environment. Remediation of
contaminated ground water protects public health directly, as
potable wells tap the aquifers extending beneath the site.
Restoration of Trout Brook and the surrounding hardwood wetlands
is the primary environmental objective of site remediation,
although the connection with other surface waters involves
public health, as well.
The technical response categories identified for the Combe Fill
South site are listed in Table 3. Of the categories listed,
complete removal was deemed infeasible due to the large volume
of landfilled wastes at the site, which has been estimated at
five million cubic yards (5,000,000 CY). No approved facility
currently exists that could receive such a large volume of wastes.
In addition, in-situ treatment of contaminated ground water was
seriously questioned due to the fractured nature of the bedrock
associated with the deep aquifer. Fracturing may isolate
pockets of deep ground water and preclude complete treatment of
the aquifer.
A comprehensive list of remedial technologies was developed
based on these response categories (Table 4) and screened to
eliminate inappropriate elements. This list includes both
established and innovative technologies and screening was
performed in the context of developing a permanent solution
to the problems at the site. Asphalt and concrete were both
eliminated as capping materials due to their potential incom-
patibility with landfill wastes. Further, their rigidity is
not suited to an unstable landfill surface. Revegetation with
shrubs and trees (as opposed to ground cover alone) was also
eliminated as part of a capping alternative, since the roots
could eventually penetrate the cap and thus allow infiltration.
()
A cement/bentonite mixture was rejected for the slurry wall
because the cement could actually increase the permeability of
the wall. Similarly, sheet (steel) piling was dropped from
further consideration because the rocky soils (especially the
Parker series) and bedrock might preclude installation or
damage the wall during emplacement. General operation and
maintenance (O&M) problems eliminated French drains and tile
drains from further consideration.
The options for removing or containing contaminated sediments
were scaled down or dropped due to the small quantities of
sediment involved. Various options for in-situ treatment were
considered and rejected due to the fractured bedrock, as mentioned
above. In general, technologies with little or no field testing
to support them were eliminated, along with those that involve
-------
---- --~_._---~.~-----~---~-- -
-14-
TABLE 3
GENERAL REMEDIAL RESPONSE CATEGORIES
COMBE FILL SOUTH LANDFILL
RESPONSE CATEGORY
No or Minimal Action
Access Restrictions
Containment
Pumping
Diversion
.
Removal:
Complete
Partial
Collection
On-site
Off-site
In-situ
and Treatment:
Disposal:
On-site
Off-site
Alternative Water Supply
Relocation
-------
(I
1.
2.
-15-
TABLE 4
REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
COMBE FILL SOUTH LANDFILL
Gas and Dust Migration Control
A.
Dust Control Measures
1. Polymers
2. Water
B.
Gas Collection
1. Passive pipe vents
2. Passive trench vents
3. Active gas collection
C.
Capping.
1. Synthetic membrane
2. Clay
3. Asphalt
4. Concrete
5. Chemical additives/
stabilizers
6. Multi-layered cap
D.
vertical Barriers
(See #3; Leachate Control,
for specific technologies)
Surface Water Controls
A. Capping
(see #1, above)
-B ..
Grading
1. Scarification
2. Tracking
3. Contour furrowing
C.
Revegetation
1. Grasses
-------
._---_.._---~-----_..- ------------.- ----------- --------
3.
- ------------- ._-----~-----~~--- +-
-16:-
TABLE 4 (continued)
REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
COMBE FILL SOUTH LANDFILL
D.
Diversion and Collection Systems
1. Berms
2. Ditches~ trenches and swales
3. Terraces and benches
4. Chutes and downpipes
5. Seepage or recharge basins
6. Storage ponds
7. Levee/flood walls
Leachate and Ground Water Controls
A.
Capping (see #lC)
.
B.
Barriers
1. Location
a. Downgradient
b. Upgradient
c. Horizontal
(bottom-sealing)
2.
Material/Construction
a. Soil/bentonite slurry wall
b. Cement/bentonite slurry wall
c. Grout curtains.
d. Sheet piling (steel)
e. Synthetic membrane
C.
In-situ Permeable Treatment Beds
D.
Ground Water Pumping
1. Funct ion
a. Extract ion
b. Injection (alone or
with extraction)
2.
System Options
a. Well points
b. Deep wells
E.
Subsurface Collection System
1. Drainage ditches/trenches
2. French drains/tile drains
-------
o
4.
5.
6.
7.
-17-
TABLE 4 (continued)
REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
COMBE FILL SOUTH LANDFILL
Excavation and Removal of Waste and Soil
Removal/Containment of Contaminated Sediments
A.
Sediment Removal
1. Mechanical
2. Hydraulic
3. Pneumatic
B.
Sediment/turbidity controls
1. Silt curtains
2. Cofferdams/sheet pilei
strea~ diversion/barriers
In-situ Treatment
A.
Extraction (soil flushing)
B.
Immobilization
1. Sorption
2. Ion exchange
3. Precipitation
C.
Chemical Degradation
1. Oxidation
2. Reduction
3. polymerization
D.
Biodegradation
E.
Photolysis
F.
Attenuation
G.
Reduction of Volatilization
Waste Treatment
A.
Incineration/Destruction
1. Rotary kiln
2. Fluidized bed
3. Multiple hearth
4. Liquid injection (liquid waste)
5. Molten salt
6. pyrolys is
-------
-18-
TABLE 4 (continued)
REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
COMBE F!LL SOUTH LANDFILL
B.
Gaseous Waste Treatment
1. Activated carbon
2. Flares
3. Afterburners
4. Recovery/reuse
C.
Liquid Waste Treatment
1. Biological treatment
a. Activated sludge
b. Trickling filter
c. Rotating biological contactor
d. Aer~ted lagoons/waste
stabilization ponds
e. Anaerobic filter
2.
Chemical Treatment
a. Precipitation
b. Flocculation/coagulation
c. Aeration/oxidation
d. Neutralization (pH adjustment)
e. Chlorination
f. UV/ozonation
3.
Physical Treatment
a. Flow equalization
b. Sedimentation
c. Activated carbon
d. Ion exchange
e. Reverse osmosis
f. Liquid-liquid extraction
g. Oil-water separator
h. Steam distillation
i. Filtration
J. Air stripping
k. Steam stripping
1. Dissolved air flotation
4.
Discharge to publicly owned
-------
-19-
TABLE 4 (continued)
REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
COMBE FILL SOUTH LANDFILL
D.
Sludge Handling and Treatment
1. Thickening/Dewatering
a. Screens
b. Centrifuge
c. Gravity thickening
d. Flotation/thickening
e. Vacuum filtration
f. Belt filter press
g. Pressure filter
2.
Treatment
a. At p"oTW
b. On-site
c. At RCRA disposal facility
d. . Neutralization
e. Incineration
f. Oxidation/reduction
g. Composting
E.
Solidification/Encapsulation
1. Solidification
a. Cement-based
b. Lime-based
c. Thermoplastic
d. Organic polymers
e. Self-cementing
f. Vitrification
(glassification)
2.
Encapsulation
8. Land Disposal/Storage
A. Landfills
B. Surface Impoundments
C. Land Application
D. Waste Piles
E. Deep Well Injection
-------
10.
11.
9.
-20-
TABLE 4 (continued)
REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
COMBE FILL SOUTH LANDFILL
Provision of Potable Water
A.
Alternate drinking water supply
1. Deeper wells
2. Cisterns or tanks
3. Municipal water system
B.
Individual Treatment Units
Relocation
.
Access Restriction
A.
Signs
B.
Fencing
C.
-------
-21-
Such large-scale operations would entail increased short-term
emissions of volatile organics, temporary storage of excavated
material, increased risks to on-site workers, and enormous
costs. The effectiveness of any such alternative, therefore,
is compromised by cost and feasibility considerations.
The successfully screened remedial technologies were used to
develop an initial list of ten remedial alternatives (Table 5).
Considering cost, feasibility, and effectiveness, two alterna-
tives--off-site disposal and capping without management of
migration--were dropped from further consideration.
A clay cap would provide some control of the contamination
source by reducing infiltration and thus the amount of leachate
generated. However, by itself, it does not mitigate the existing
ground water contamination in any way, either on- or off-site,
and would increase off-site migration of contaminants relative
to the other alternatives considered. Thus, although cost and
feasibility are both comparable to other alternatives, the lack
of effectiveness rules out capping alone, as it would not
adequately protect public health or the environment.
The other alternative eliminated during initial screening was
off-site disposal of landfill wastes. This approach is the most
effective source control remedy considered, since it physically
removes the contamination to eliminate any further c9ntact with
the ground water. It is also one of the five categories that
must be addressed, according to NCP requirements. The feasibility
of this alternative in this case, however, is highly questionable
on several counts. Excavation and transportation of such a large
volume of waste material presents significant risks of exposure
by both airborne dispersion and potential direct contact.
. These risks are aggravated by the long time required to dig up
and remove all the on-site wastes. Finally, the associated
cost estimate of $3.4 billion is prohibitive in light of the
monies available for site remediation nationwide.
Since off-site disposal at a RCRA facility must be addressed
and the original alternative is precluded by prohibitive costs
and limited feasibility, a modified alternative was developed
to address the intent of the NCP category requirement while
providing more reasonable costs and increased feasibility.
This alternative involves on-site disposal - i.e., a RCRA-
approved landfill on and around the existing site. Construction
df this facility entails the purchase of 135 acres of additional
property next to or near the site. This approach is discussed
-------
-22-
TABLE 5
ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPED FOR INITIAL SCREENING
2A.
2B.
3A.
3B.
3C.
SA.
5B.
5C.
1.
No Action
Disposal at off-site RCRA landfill
Construction of on-site RCRA landfill
Cap, Treat, and Trench
Cap, Treat, Trench, and Deep Pump
Cap, Treat, and .Shallow & Deep Pump
4.
Cap, Treat, Trench, Extensive Deep Pump,
and Upgradient Barrier Wall
Cap, Treat, Short-Term Downgradient Pump,
and Circumferential Barrier Wall
Clayless Cap, Treat, and Trench
-------
-23-
o
A third modification to the alternatives listed was based on
whether deep aquifer pumping would draw contaminated ground
water down from the shallow aquifer. If so, this process would
allow contamination to enter the fractured bedrock, where
remediation would be far more difficult, if not impossible. In
contrast, "the shallow aquifer is more accessible and recovery
pumping would be more effective. A shallow. pumping system would
replace the more elaborate (and much more expensive) leachate
collection t~ench included as part of Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 4.
Given these considerations, the shallow and deep aquifer pumping
components of Alternative 3C were re-examined in a different
light. As a result, a phased approach was developed consisting
of two separate elements. First, the shallow aquifer would be
pumped to lower the water table on-site and isolate the landfilled
wastes from the shallow ground water. After the water table
and contaminant concentrations had been lowered to acceptable
levels, the need for deep aquifer remediation could then be
evaluated in a second-phase feasibility study.
As the water table is lowered and the wastes dry out, generation
of methane and other gases may increase. Accordingly, the
passive gas venting system was replaced with the active gas col-
lection and treatment included as part of Alternative 4. This
upgrade is considered necessary to minimize the risks of explo-
sion, spontaneous combustion, and subsidence.
Eventually, a fourth alternative was created to incorporate
these components, which is designated Alternative 3D. 20
additional ground water wells were incorporated, as well--lO
to be installed in each aquifer to evaluate the effectiveness
of the shallow aquifer remediation and to tr.ack contaminant
migration in the deep aquifer.
Alternate Water Supply
In May 1986, NJDEP promised local officials that each remedial
alternative considered would include a permanent alternate water
supply for residents within the area of actual or potential
impacts, as defined by NJDEP. Over the past several years the
Department has collected well water samples at numerous residences
in the vicinity of the Combe Fill South Landfill. However, it
was not until the results of the August 1985 residential sampling
program were reviewed that drinking water quality became a con-
cern (i.e., concentrations of certain compounds approached the
Department's Drinking Water Guidelines) for a few residences.
Based on the limited information available in December 1985,
the Department identified an area of actual or potential impacts
resulting from off-site migration of contaminated ground water
from the landfill. Residents within this area were advised
that there might be some risks associated with drinking their
-------
-24-
at that time. The Department also advised all residents within
this area to use bottled water if they were concerned about
their water quality, or if better quality water were readily
available. SUbsequently, claim forms for the Sanitary. Landfill
Closure and Contingency Fund were forwarded to these residents
for future reimbursement of costs associated with the purchase
of bottled wat~r.
The decision to develop a permanent alternate water supply for
affected residents was based on the hydrogeological nature of
this site and the potential for contaminants to migrate off-site.
This was a preventive decision, not based solely on the known
potable well contamination. A briefing was given on April 31,
1986 for local, state, and federal representatives, as well as
environmental groups. Based on the discussions during this
meeting, the Department instructed its contractor to examine
three separate options for a permanent alternate water source:
creation of a new water supply, extension of the Washington
Township Municipal Utilities Authority (WTMUA) supply, and exten-
sion of the Chester Township Water Company supply. Ordinarily,
this study would be conducted after the Record of Decision is
completed. However, because of the Department's commitment to
resolve the water supply issue, the study of alternate water
sources was initiated weil in advance of the usual time frame.
The extent of the impacted area has been outlined but the exact
number of affected residences within that area has yet to be
finalized (Figure 6). At the July 14, 1986 public meeting in
Chester Township, NJDEP defined a core area of affected resi-
dences on Schoolhouse Lane, Parker Road and part of Old Farmers
Road that will definitely receive a permanent alternate water
supply. Further, NJDEP decided to sample potable wells in the
surrounding area to ensure that the impacted area boundaries
are accurate and sufficiently conservative to account for any
further migration of contaminants.
NJDEP sampled the 39 accessible potable wells in the core area
on August 19-21, 1986. As soon as the results of this sampling
are reviewed, NJDEP will determine which properties are to
receive the water supply. The impacted area, as described in
the evaluation report, extends from the existing water main in
Washington Township along Parker Road to Route 24, including
Schoolhouse Lane (Figure 6). For costing purposes, this area
was considered to encompass 62 homes, although the exact number
will be finalized during construction.
Provision of a permanent alternate water supply to the impacted
area is justifiable for several reasons. First, the residences
-------
Fig ).
COMBE FILL SOUTH LANDFILL dATER SUPPLY Al TERNA TIVES
~EGENO
o
-~
1000 0
---
,000
JOQO
JOOO
4OOf)
""'"
.
0000
100
.
- ---
~.~~~ POSSIBLE EXTENSION
l& OF SERVICE AREA
I ,.
II;:;:::::::&. - _.8 ----
o
IIUlt" 'I
CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 fEET
-------
- --._~---_..~--- ..- .._----~_._-
-26-
phic area. Second, the nature of the site's geology and the
confirmed well contamination in the area negates any rationale
for a preventive monitoring program. Third, periodic monitoring
of private _wells to track the contaminant plume is far more
costly (and ineffective for protecting public health) than
providing an alternate water supply to the affected residences.
For these reasons, EPA supports the creation of an alternate
water system and provision of bottled water to the affected
residences in the interim.
The NJDEP intends to provide a permanent alternate water system
for the affected residents by extending the Washington Township
Municipal Utilities Authority (WTMUA) water main to the impacted
area. This project is addressed in detail in a separate report
issued by the NJDEP. As soon as the results of the August 1986
potable well sampling are available the NJDEP will initiate
negotiations with the WTMUA.
Under CERCLA, federal funds caq only be spent to meet the af-
fected community's current potable water needs. This constraint
excludes the costs associated with a larger diameter water main
to meet fire fighting needs or future development. However,
because these aspects are important in long-term planning and
coordination of construction projects, the additional costs
involved could be assumed by the township(s) to increase the
cost-effectiveness of the system and maximize benefits to the
commun i ty.,
DESCRIPTIONS OF ALTERNATIVES
The nine alternatives remaining after successive screening are
listed in Table 6. At least one of each of these alternatives
addresses one of the five categories of site remediation in 40
CFR Part 300.68(f):
1.
No action.
2.
Alternatives for treatment or disposal at an off-site
facility approved by EPA.
3 .
Alternatives that attain applicable and relevant Federal
and State public health or environmental requirements.
. 4.
Alternatives that exceed applicable and relevant Federal
-------
-27-
TABLE 6
COMPARISON OF PRESENT WORTH FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVE. DESCRIPTION
lA
No Remedial
Action
CAPITAL
COST ($)
317,550
1,-302,100
217,085,300
63,231,600
.
63,341,800
44,616,400
46,060,700
65,798,100
53,180,200
52,971,400
O&M
PRESENT
WORTH ($)
1,108,603
1,202,872
4,034,713
3,443,073
3,584,471
4,668,518
6. , 091 , 91 9
6,510,985
2,516,982
3,443,073
TOTAL
. PRESENT
WORTH ($)
1,426,153
2,504,972
221,120,013
66,674,673
66,926,271
49,284,918
52,152,619
72,309,085
55,697,182
56,414,473
IB
No Source
Control Action
Present worth is calculated based on an interest rate of 10% and a
30 year project duration.
NOTE:
2
New RCRA
Landfill
3A
Cap, Treat,
and Trench
3B
Cap, Treat,
Trench, and
Deep Pump
3C
Cap, Treat,
and Shallow
& Deep Pump
3D
Cap, Treat,
and Extensive
Shallow Pump
4
Cap, Treat,
Trench, Exten-
sive Deep Pump,
and NW Barrier
5A
Cap and Circum-
ferential .
Barrier Wall
5B
Clayless Cap,
Treat, and
Trench
The cost differential between Alternatives lA and IB repre-
-------
-28-
5.
Alternatives that do not attain applicable or relevant
public health or environmental requirements but will
reduce the likelihood of present and future threats from
hazardous substances. .
The altern~tives developed to address the latter three NCP
categories involve both source control and management of contam-
inant migratjon. The tiffiely installation of an alternate water
supply, however, will eEfectively address the latter concern.
Accordingly, source control becomes the more important factor i~
selecting a final remedy for this site.
Tables 7 and 8 list and compare the technical aspects for each
alternative. As shown, every alternative includes security
fencing and quarterly environmental monitoring of ground water,
surface waters, and air at and near the site. Furthermore, the
installation of an alternate water supply is being implemented
as a separate remedial measure, as discussed above. Accordingly,
the following discussion will focus on the differences between
the various alternatives.
The final alternatives were numbered in the Feasibility
(FS) according to the five NCP categories, with letters
to differentiate alternatives within a given category.
system will be used here for consistency.
..
Study
added
This
1.
NO ACTION
Aside from the alternate water supply, this alternative consists
only of security fencing and environmental monitoring. It has
an estimated present worth of $2.5 million, or $1.4 million
without the alternate water supply.
A security fence would restrict unauthorized access to the site,
thus reducing the potential for direct contact with the land-
filled wastes. These include solid materials uncovered due to
poor maintenance or erosion, leachate seeping from the side
slopes, and gases released from rifts.
Installation of four ground water wells in each of the two
aquifers and quarterly environmental monitoring will provide
more complete information regarding contaminant migration over
time. Monitoring of all the exposure pathways identified will
provide an early warning system should additional wells become
-------
-29-
TABLE 7
DESCRIPTIONS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Notes:
1 .
An alternate water supply for affected residences will be
installed regardless ~f the specific site remedy selected
and so can be considered an element of every alternative,
although not listed below.
2.
The components of the no-action alternative are contained
within every other alternative, with minor variations in
some cases.
Alternative 1 - No Action
- Installation of monitoring wells
- Quarterly environmental monitoring
- Security fencing
.
Alternative 2
- Creation of on-site RCRA landfill in lieu of off-site disposal
Alternatives 3A, 3B, 3C, and 3D
- Site preparation, grading, filling and access road
- Installation of multi-layered, terraced cap
- Surface water controls
- On-site ground water/leachate treatment and disposal with dis-
charge to Trout Brook
Specific Components
Alternative 3A
Passive gas venting via trench
- Leachate collection trench
Alternative 3B - Passive gas venting via trench
- Leachate collection trench
- Localized deep pumping to northeast
Alternative 3C - Passive gas venting via pipe vents
- Shallow and deep aquifer pumping
Alternative 3D
- Additional monitoring wells
- Active gas collection and treatment
Expanded downgradient shallow pumping in lieu
of leachate collection trench
- No deep aquifer pumping
- Addition of plastic liner to cap where ground
-------
-30-
TABLE 7 (continued)
Alternative 4
- Multi-layered, terraced cap
- Active gas collection and treatment
- Leachate collection trench
- Extensive deep pumping
- Surface water controls
- Upgradient ground water barrier wall
- Ground water treatment and disposal,
with discharge to Black River
Alternatives SA and 5B
- Multi-layered, terraced cap
- Passive gas venting
- Surface water controls
.
Specific Components
Alternative SA - Clay layer included in cap
- Gas vented via pipe vents
- Circumferential ground water barrier wall
Alternative 5B
- Clay layer not installed in cap
- Gas vented via trench
- Leachate collection trench
- Ground water/leachate treatment
with discharge to Trout Brook
-------
TABLE 8
-------
-32-
Under this alternative, the contamination source would remain
in its present state and continue to pollute the ground water.
Off-site migration of contaminanted ground water would also
continue, increasing so the risk of successive well contamination.
Except for direct contact with wastes by persons or animals
coming on~site, all exposure pathways would be left intact.
Thus, the no action alternative does not address either source
control or management of migration.
2.
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL
Complete excavation and off-site disposal of wastes at an
existing RCRA landfill is not technically, economically, or
environmentally viable, as already discussed above. Given the
NCP requirements, the next most appropriate alternative would
be on-site disposal--i.e., the creation of a RCRA-3pproved
landfill on and near the existing site to contain all the waste
material on-site. Such a facility would accept only waste from
the Combe Fill South Landfill; no hazardous wastes from any
other sites would be accepted.
In addition to the measures outJined for the no action alternative,
this alternative includes:
o Purchase of additional adjacent property for the construction
of the facility, estimated at 135 additional acres. This
expansion is necessary to spread the landfilled material
over a larger area so that the slopes on-site can be reduced
to between three and five percent. This is the range required
for installation of a full RCRA "model" cap.
o Construction of the new RCRA landfill facility. This would
be a major operation involving many tasks, including:
staged excavation and temporary storage of landfill wastes,
excavation of new landfill cells, installation of landfill
wastes, capping of cells, and operation and maintenance of
the capped facility for 30 years, along with many other
activities.
An on-site RCRA landfill would provide the most effective source
control of the final alternatives listed, since landfill wastes
would be physically isolated from the shallow ground water.
Except for problems involving transport and final disposal,
however, the negative impacts of the on-site operations would
be similar to those for the rejected off-site disposal alter-
native: increased emission of volatiles, greater exposure risks
to solid material, the need for temporary on- or off-site
storage for excavated material, and so on.
Neither disposal alternative would reduce existing ground water
contamination, as both deal only with source control. However,
the installation of the alternate water supply adequately addres-
-------
-33-
The present worth of establishing an on-site RCRA landfill is
approximately $221 million. Although far less expensive than
the $3.4.billion estimated for off-site disposal, this amount is
still three times the cost of the next most expensive alternative.
As such, this alternative shows high effectiveness, limited
feasibility, and low cost-effectiveness.
The no-action and off-site disposal alternatives represent the
two extremes in site remediation in terMS of both costs and
complexity. The remaining candidates, which are compared in
Table 9, are all containment alternatives that meet or exceed
all or some of the applicable requirements. All include general
site preparation, construction of an access road, and surface
water controls. Each alternative also includes one of several
options for capping, gas venting, and collection, treatment and
disposal of ground water/leachate. The following discussions
will focus on the differences in the primary remedial components
of each alternative.
3 .
ALTERNATIVES THAT MEET APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS
.
Four alternatives were developed to provide source control and
management of contaminant migration, as well as some means of
mitigating the adverse impacts in each of the contaminated
media: ground water, surface water, air, and soils. These
four alternatives differ primarily in the degree to which
ground water contamination is controlled.
3A. Cap with Trench and On-Site Treatment
This alternative is designed to attain CERCLA goals of minimizing
present and future migration of hazardous waste and protecting
human health and the environment by remediating the major
pathways of contaminant migration. The major technical components
are a multi-layered, terraced cap (see Figure 7), a passive gas
treatment system, a leachate collection trench, and an on-site
ground water/leachate treatment system that will discharge to
Trout Br90~. Figure 8 shows an aerial view of this alternative.
Of the contaminant pathways listed above in Table 2--air, soil,
surface water, and ground water--a multi-layered cap covering
the entire site will directly address all but those involving
downward and off-site migration of ground water, which are ap-
proached indirectly. While the deep aquifer is the primary
pathway for the well water contamination, the installation of
the alternate water supply eliminates the hazards associated
with off-site migration of deep ground water. However, ground
water migration still needs to be addressed by the other compo-
nents of this alternative to provide a permanent remedy for the
-------
- -----_.._---...._----~-_._--
-----~--~-_.~._--
-34-
Table 9
COMPARISON OF REMEDIAL COMPONENTS FOR CONTAINMENT ALTERNATIVES
3C 3D* 5A 58 3A 38 4
On-site treatment + + + + + +
of groundwater/ discharged
leachate to Black
River
Multi-layered + + + + + + +
cap with partial w/o clay
synthetic liner layer
Leachate + + + +
collection
trench
.
Groundwater + +
barrier wall circum- upgradient
ferential only
Shallow well + +
system intensive
Deep well + + +
system local- site-
ized wide
Passive gas + + + + +
venting system via pipe via pipe via via via
vents vents trench trench trench
Active gas + +
collection and
treatment
Total Capital 44.6 46.1 53.2 53.0 63.2 63.3 65.8
Costs:
Present Worth: 49.3 52.2 55.7 56.4 66.7 66.9 72.3
All costs shown are in millions of dollars.
-------
Figure 7.
Composition of Multi-Layered
Cap
. . . . . . . . . . .
.................
~~i~?~~2%~!1!f~~X~ri\J.vl;tt[;f;;~~~r~~~@~:t%~!:%l}~~+~~:~:;H~j~:~;:i?;~~~~U~~;
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
........
.................
.......
...........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..................
...... ....... ........... .....'
. . . . . . . . .
.......
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
..........
. . . . . . .
............
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....... .... ....... ......
....... ....... .........
............... ... .....
. ...... .... ....... .....,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
........ ..
2' CLAY (10-7 cm/8ec
PERMEABILITY)
l' GRAVEL GAS VENTING
I
w
U1
I
EXISTING WASTE, REGRADED
Note:
The plastic liner,
inserted where technically feasible to comply with RCRA regulations,
would be
-------
~
~
..
,;;
-36-
~
~
~
..
~
~
..
~
Q
.
!
..
~
;
~
..
','.
}',
," "'".'t
.'
.I
i'
jO' .,
I 0"
. .
/
.
.
I"LUENT OISCHAA(j;f:
TO TROUT BAOOK
[{:::;:::;:}}!
II : : : : : : : I
o..~ 5t1£ POTw
WUl'I\.....,e..(o CAP ",
Wt1M CI""Y
-11---«-
HNC(
---EiiI
GRAVEL PAvED
ACCESS ROAD
It.... .'..f. .... ..., .,...
COMBE FILL SOUTH LANDFILL
REMEDIAL INVESTIGA TrONI
FEASIBILITY STUDY
EX4C"V.TEO WASTES
WOYEO 10 ""'N
AREAS uNOER CAP
Lawler, Mal"aky & Skelly Englne.,a
("..""'."1 Ic.,..., , -,......... c.........
0- ..... .... 'I".
---
lE"CHA'( , PASSIVE'
GAS COllCCTION 'Q[NC...
-------
PASSIVE GAS
COllCCTION TRENC...
-
W r. a. wmH ~'IOdIJb8,1nc.
.~;iliT;;;"'_, -"..,
........, .......-
SCHEMATIC PLAN VIEW'
AL TERNA TIVE No. 3A
ACHIEVE STANDARDS WITH CAP,
TRENCH, ANO TREAT
400 0
~
Scale In 188\
.00
I
-------
-37-
The leachate/ground water collection trench will be keyed into
the bedrock, the depth of which is 40 feet on the average but
is as deep as 80 feet in some areas. This trench will capture
about 90 percent of the shallow ground water flowing off-site,
or 102,000 gallons per day (GPO). ft thus controls the migration
of contaminants downward and off-site. Because capping the
landfill will reduce or eliminate the infiltration and subsequent
contamination of surface water and precipitation, moreover, the
amount of leachate will decre~se with time.
Passive gas venting will help to regulate the emission of
methane and other landfill-generated gases. Otherwise, the
pressure build-up could eventually disturb or rupture the cap,
or even cause an explosion. This component thus provides
indirect protection of public health by ensuring the integrity
of the cap. Emission of volatile organics into the air
will increase, however.
The perimeter of the cap will be terraced with gab ions (weighted
boxes of steel mesh) to accommodate the steep side slopes. The
gab ions will be placed on top of the clay layer to support the
upper layers (sand, filter clobh, and cover). This little-used
but established technology will avoid the problems involved in
acquiring adjacent properties and regrading the site extensively.
In addition, berms will be built above the terraces to aid in
surface water control, especially storm runoff.
Typical on-site treatment methods were incorporated to facilitate
costing, although the actual technologies to be applied will be
finalized during remedial design. The treated water will then
be discharged to Trout Brook. Again, with the cap in place and
surface runoff also diverted into Trout Brook, the amount of
leachate to be treated will decrease substantially with time.
This reduction, from 135,000 GPO now to 20,000 GPO within 10
years, will be reflected in lowered O&M costs. Accordingly,
modular treatment units will maximize the cost-effectiveness
of this component.
The access roads to be constructed include a paved road to the
on-site treatment facility and a gravel road around the perimeter
of the cap.
This alternative reduces the volumes of uncontaminated water
entering the landfill, leachate being generated, and contaminated
ground water moving off-site. The alternate water supply
effectively addresses the primary contaminant pathway, while
the on-site components contain the waste material and reduce
off-site migration of contaminants.
3B. Cap with Trench, Localized Deep Pumping, and On-site Treatment
Alternatives 3A and 3B are identical except that deep pumping
is added here to collect and remediate the contaminated ground
-------
-38-
system will ensure a safe supply of drinking water to the
affected residents. Two wells will be installed northeast of
the site in the path of the plume approximately 175 feet deep
(Figure 9). These wells would pump. an average of 920 GPO of
contaminated ground water from the bedrock to the on-site
treatment facility for treatment and surface discharge to Trout
Brook. -
This flow path accounts for only 7 percent of the deep ground
water (and 0.7 pe~cent of the total ground water) flowing under
the site. Again, although it flows toward the main conce~tration
of houses with contaminated well water and represents the most
significant adverse public health impact (i.e., contaminated
drinking water) associated with the landfill, the risks imposed
will be eliminated by the installation of the alternate water
supply.
The logistics of tapping the deep aquifer present additional
problems, given the fractured nature of the bedrock. However,
the slight increase in collected ground water (920 GPO) associated
with deep aquifer pumping should not affect the sizing of the
on-site treatment facility described under Alternative 3A.
Overall, this alternative is inferior to Alternative 3A in
effectiveness in protecting public health and the environment,
feasibility, and cost-effectiveness. .
3C. Cap with Shallow and Deep Pumping and On-site Treatment
Alternative 3C is similar to Alternative 3B except that it
substitutes an active technology (pumping) for a passive
technology (the leachate collection trench) to remediate the
shallow aquifer. Deep well pumping in the northeast flow path,
previously described for Alternative 3B, is also included here
and indicated in Figure 10.
The shallow pumping system to be used consists of 48 shallow
wells, spaced 100 feet apart on center. This shallow aquifer
pumping system substitutes for the leachate collection trench
(at an enormous cost savings) in collecting and transporting
the contaminated shallow ground water to the on-site treatment
facility. The system will lower the water table on-site and
thus isolate and dry out the wastes in the lower sections of
the landfill. This process enhances the containment provided
by the cap and further reduces the risks stemming from having
the waste material saturated. Reduced downward migration will
result in less off-site migration of contaminants, in turn.
I
Depending on the drawdown, these wells could dry up, which
would not be a problem with the trench. However, pumping rates
can be adjusted accordingly, and removal of shallow ground
-------
--- ---
-- -- - - --- -- " t ~
~ :: " ~
.. .. (;
. :: : : 0 ;
.'0"'0 .. .. .
f .. .. ; ~ ~
.. 0; 0; ... ... ..
o
L.awler, Mlluaky , Skelly Enolnee,a
COMBE FILL SOUTH LANDFILL
REMEDIAL INVESTIGA TION/
FEASIBILITY STUDY
("'.."""""1 Ic..,... , ."......... c........."..
ON I.... "... 1"."
p..,. a"'f, M.. ,.., to...
i!\ r. II. wM-M zsaodnM,R.
* 'lIi~'r.~... ---',..,.
......, ,..,.,.....
SCHEMATIC PLAN VIEW
ALTERNATIVE No. 38
ACHIEVE STANDARDS WITH CAP,
TRENCH, DEEP PUMP, AND TREAT
LEGEND
---- CO~BE Fill
SOUTH L.ANDFlll
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
.
[::::::::,:,:::::::::::!
1:::::::::1
-11---11-
----'
- - - IJ.~~~.;:
CRAVe\. PAVEO
---
-------
.
E"lUEHT DISCHARGE
TO TROUT SROOK
ON-SITE POTw
WUL T'lAYIReo CAP
WITH CLAY
'EHCE
ACCESS AOAO
eX.CAVATEO WASTES
MOVED TO MAIN
AREAS UNDER CAP
LEACHA'E & PASSIVE
GAS COLLECTION TRENC""
PASSiVE GAS
COL\.ECTION TReIOolC....
.00 0
~
Scale In feel
.00
I
-------
.,077)0
~
;
...
~
.
..
f
..
~
.
..
..
.;;
SI
..
=
..
.;;
~
=
..
w
o
..
i
..
w
SI
o
.
!
~
;
~
..
-40-
"-
, ,
.'
I.
f
I.' .,
~.
, .
.----".'.
I
'-
ON-SITE POTW
"'U1.. tILA"ERED CL,4."
CAP WITH PASSIVE
PIPE VE~TS
-,,-
FENCE
===-aFt
GRAVEL PAVED
ACCESS ROAD
0,,- ..... Hell '1"1
COMBE FILL SOUTH LANDFILL
REMEDIAL INVESTIGA TIONI
,FEASIBILITY STUDY
[:=J
EXACAVATEO WASTES
MOVED TO MAIN
AREAS UNDER CAP
lawler, Maluaky & Skelly Englne.,a
("..."""l1li111 ICI.ftCt , I"......,,,, c........."..
"'" a,"'f. Nt. 'Of' 10...
m r.~. WMH ueodIJbe,nc.
w ...iliT;;;"'.., -'1..1'
-....., ..........
SCHEMATIC PLAN VIEW
ALTERNATIVE No. 3C
ACHIEVE STANDARDS WITH CAP,
~~all nw ANn m::~p PI IMP "'Mn TqFAT
.00 0
~
-
Scale In feet
.00
-------
-41-
The major. portion of the peripheral passive gas venting system
will be eliminated along with the leachate collection trench.
An interior grid of passive gas extraction wells will be used
instead. The vent pipes will extend into the waste pile and
funnel gases from the waste to the surface of the cap, where
they will 'be. discharged to the air. This release will alleviate
pressure buIld-up under the cap and is not expected to increase
the risk of airborne contaminants moving off-site due to rapid
diffusion.
Overall, this alternative has high cost-effectiveness and
feasibilty due to the replacement of the leachate collection
trench with the shallow pumping system. In addition, this
approach will effectively address the remedial objectives.
3D. Cap With Extensive Shallow Pumping and On-site Treatment
As discussed earlier, this alternative is a modified form of
Alternative 3C. Here, the deep pumping has been eliminated and
an active gas collection and venting system, which is described
in more detail under Alternative 4, replaces the passive vents.
The aspects of deep pumping are discussed above for Alternatives
38 and 3C.
The active gas system was added to minimize the risks associated
with the drying of the waste material under the cap. Moreover,
the passive discharge of landfill-generated gases around the
perimeter of the site may increase the off-site exposure risk.
The active system uses a centralized blower and flaring to remove
volatiles and maximize diffusion prior to migration off-site.
4.
ALTERNATIVES THAT EXCEED FEDERAL STANDARDS
This alternative is designed to provide remediation above and
beyond the goals established by applicable federal legislation.
This alternative attempts to achieve this objective by the
inclusion of a number of additional remedial activities beyond
those described for Alternatives 3A, 3B, 3C, and 3D. It is
designed specifically to control and remediate all contaminated
ground water.
The components of Alternative 4 are shown in Figure 11.
additional components incorporated here are:
The
a.
An active gas collection and treatment system,
of a grid of 65 gas extraction wells connected
vacuum blower. Landfill-generated methane and
volatile organics will be removed by flaring.
consisting
to a
some
b.
Deep aquifer pumping beneath the site, using a series
of 10 wells. The water thus produced would be treated
-------
--~_..
.
..
..
.;;
--It
..
::
..
.;;
!
.
..
..
.;;
~
::
..
;
"
...
i
..
.:;
~
;)
.
!:
w
.,orno
~
;
!
w
-42-
LEGEND
---- co~eE FILL
SOUTH LANDFILL
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
.
. e',weNT DISCHAAoe
TO BLACK AlvrA
I:))))/:A
f -,.'''~
..;:~~~;~ ~~~;:
Dol-SITE POTW
UUL fl-LA VERIO CLA.,
CAP WITH ACTIVE OAS
COLLECTION AND TAU T"ENT
-..-..-... lEACHATE COLLECTION
TReNCH
'.
...........
UPORAOIENT IARAIIA
lawl", "'atuaky & Sktlly Englnt"a
-'-Jl- 'ENCE
COMBE FILL SOUTH LANDFILL
REMEDIAL INVESTIGA TIONI
FEASIBILITY STUDY
(ft..."'.1III11I Ie..... & E,.......,... C""'-'8""
----~
----.---.0
GRAVel I'AVED
I I
ACCess ROAD
0"- ..... H. "....
""'1 ...." III,. ,.., 10'"
EXCAVATED WASHES "'OvIO
TO WAIN AAIAI UNDER CAP
SCHEMA TIC PLAN VIEW
ALTERNATIVE No.4
EXCEED STANDARDS
400 0
~
Scale In leel
400
J
(1"1\ r.~. wrimM ~.~
W ..;i~'r.;';"'C81 _8UU"'1
......., .-..-....
':11"':':1 tnc:
-------
-43-
c.
Effluent discharge to the Black River via a one-mile
pipeline to minimize future impacts to Trout Brook and
the surrounding wetlands. Extending southeast of the site
parallel to Trout Brook, the additional pipeline would
run along Parker Road about 2800 feet to the discharge
point.
ThG effluent req~irements for this discharge location
are still in the process of being determined. However,
they will be similar for Black River and Trouc Brook.
Both are Category 1 streams, meaning that any effluent
must have the same constituent concentrations as the
receiving waters just upstream of the discharge point.
In keeping with the objective of this alternative, the
dilution of the effluent in the Black River provides
additional environmental protection.
d.
An upgradient barrier to prevent a small amount of ground
water (1400 GPD) from moving on-site from the recharge
area just north of the landfill border (see Figure 3).
This barrier will help lower the water table on the site
and thus reduce leachate production.
The barrier would be a soil-bentonite slurry wall, 300
feet long and 3 feet wide, which would be constructed
down to bedrock (an average depth of 40 feet). The clay
cap would extend over the top of the wall to prevent
desiccation and provide isolation from surface runoff.
S.
ALTERNATIVES THAT ACHIEVE SOME BUT NOT ALL FEDERAL STANDARDS
The two alternatives in this category, while not attaining all
applicable or relevant public health or environmental standards,
substantially reduce the likelihood of present and future
threats from hazardous substances.
SA. Cap and Circumferential Barrier
As seen in Figure 12, this alternative contains the site
preparation and capping components previously described for
Alternative 3B. However, this alternative does not provide
for the collection and treatment of ground water or landfill
gases. Instead, it encircles the site with a soil-bentonite
slurry wall, thus preventing further off-site migration of
contaminated ground water through the shallow aquifer. The
3-foot wide slurry wall will be constructed down to bedrock
(an average depth of 40 feet) and will entirely encircle the
waste areas (about 8000 feet around the perimeter). The clay
cap will extend over the wall to prevent desiccation or in-
filtration.
Although this alternative does not directly address the contami-
nated ground water in the bedrock aquifer, it will minimize
both infiltration into the saprolite aquifer and lateral
-------
I
I
"'
"
"
:
!!
...
---J.-
-44-
:;:
~
!!
w
~
~
~
;;
.
~
~
"
.
.
I' .'
"
.,' ...,
/
(
/'"
/.
/.
.I
I ..
.7C6_~ . ,/
.~ . '.
LEGEND
---- COUBE Fill
SOUTH LANOFILL
PROPERTY BOUNOARY
mm
MUL Tr1...\YEREO CL.AY
CAP WITH P-'sslve
PIPE \lENTS
-.....-- FENC!
-----
ACCESS ROAD. CRAVEI.
-----
Ej(C4VArEO WAsrES
MOVEO TO MAIN
ARe"s UNOEQ CAP
'.
Lawl.r, Malusky " Sk.lly Engln.."
............
CIRCUMFEAEN TIAL.
SLUR~h' WALL
''''1 R'n" N,. Yon 10...
COMBE FILL SOUTH LANDFILL
REMEDIAL INVESTfGA TrONI
FEASIBILITY STUDY
('-'''0''''''''"1 IC'8_' . f",.,..".,.. CM'".."",
0,,- 11..8 ..... "'"
i!\ r'~.~ma~,nc.
w ..;i~'r.;;"'... ~I"I.
-.",....., ,...........
SCHEMATIC PLAN VIEW
AL TERNA TlVE No. SA
ACHIEVE SOME BUT NOT ALL
STANDARDS WITH CAP AND
CIRCUMFERENTIAL BARRIER
.00 0
~
Scale In feel
.00
I
-------
-45-
Shallow well pumping may induce upward flow of the deep ground
water, due to the high water table,_but is not included in this
alternative.
The lack of an on-site treatment facility eliminates the need
for the paved access road segments previously described; a
gravel road around the cap border will be adequate. Likewise,
the site fencing is less extensive than in other alternatives.
5B. Clayless Cap With Trench and On-Site Treatment
This alternative, as shown in Figure 13, is identical to Alter-
native 3A except that the multi-layered cap does not include a
clay layer. As discussed above, the single most significant
cost of the cap is the clay layer, which is necessary to achieve
the required permeability of 10-7 cm/sec. Eliminating the clay
layer in this cap will result in savings of construction time and
costs, but will require the treatment of higher ground water
flow at the on-site treatment ~acility for a greater period of
time. Leachate production and ground water flow rates will not
decline as rapidly as with the clay cap because of the increased
permeability of the clayless cap. Thus, this alternative is
less effective in dealing with the contaminant source and off-site
migration than those that involve pumping or excavation.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Installation of an alternate water supply for the affected
properties around the site will eliminate the hazards
associated with off-site contaminant migration through the
deep aquifer. Being the means whereby well water becomes
contaminated, this migration represents the primary contaminant
pathway. With management of migration adequately addressed,
therefore, the focus of site remediation can shift to source
control measures. In rough order of decreasing scope and
effectiveness, these are: off-site removal, encapsulation,
containment (both above and below the ground surface),
pumping, and ground water barriers.
Off-site removal and encapsulation (e.g., in the cells of an
on-site RCRA landfill) have been addressed and rejected based
on cost and feasibility considerations. Physical containment
by means of a circumferential barrier would control only horizontal
movement of shallow ground water, even if keyed into the bedrock,
since the shallow and deep aquifers are contiguous. Therefore,
hydraulic containment or some other complementary measure would
also be necessary to control downward migration. However, the
feasibility of a slurry wall is hampered by the dimensions of
-------
..
;;
..
...
-46-
. -
:"
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineer.
COMBE FILL SOUTH LANDFILL
REMEDIAL INVESTIGA TrONI
FEASIBILITY STUDY
(1'''''0'''''.''"1 SC18"C8 . (ftlll'..'''' CO",,,,,,...,,
0,,- ...,. H.N ~I.,.
".". A..." M.. You '0'"
,"!\ r.~. wrlmM -8Cdmb8tnc.
W ..'t..T;~C8' COft....I.."
........, .........
SCHEMA TIC PLAN VIEW
ALTERNATIVE 5B
ACHIEVE SOME BUT NOT ALL
STANDARDS WITH CLA YLESS CAP,
TRENCH AND TREAT
~
..
...
.
~
...
.
~
...
~.
~ ,-
~:
II'
«>~.
/~!'~' .
~ '
..,
.,
*
(/ ,t
LEGEND
---- C0t.48E FILL
-. SOUTH LANDFILL
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
.
.
EFFLuENT CISCtoU,RQE
TO rQOUf ORCCI(
[IT]]
mm
ON-SITE POTW
MUI. TIL""eREO CAP
WIT"" NO CLAY
-x-)(-
FENCE
:- = :: :::::zl
GRAVEL P"'''EO
ACCESS ~OAO
c::J
EX~CAVATEO WASTES
'-40\leO TO "'''IN
"fiCAS UNDcn CAP
---
Le""CMATE & PASSIVF
CAS COLLECTION TRE'''Ct-o
------
P4SSlve OA.S
COLLECTION TRENC~
400 0
~
Scale in feet
400
,
-------
-47-
Ground water pumping is feasible but requires treatment of
the water produced. The shallow aquifer is readily accessible
and recovery pumping would be effective in lowering the water
table to isolate the wastes material and preclude contaminant
migration-off-site via the deep aquifer. Shallow pumping
addresses the deep aquifer (and thus the primary contaminant
pathway) only indirectly. However, this ap~roach is consistent
with the emphasis on source centrol due to the pending instal-
lation of the alternate water supply. Pumping the deep aquifer
is thus less important. This aquifer is also accesible, but
the effectiveness/feasibility of any recovery pumping operation
is severely limited by the fractured bedrock. Even if wells
can be placed so as to tap into major fractures, isolated
pockets of deep ground water may be unreachable.
Both localized upgradient barriers and surface caps prevent
flux of uncontaminated water, thereby reducing the amount
of leachate generated. A cap also minimizes the risks of
direct exposure to wastes and airborne dispersal of landfill
gases, although short-term impqcts may increase during construc-
tion. As with the circumferential barrier, ground water pumping
would be a necessary complement to either of these components.
However, both the cap and the upgradient barrier are superior
to the circumferential barrier in terms of feasibility and
implementabilty.
The no action alternative allows the continued migration of
chemicals in the ground water, some of it toward drinking water.
wells. It will also allow the contamination of wetlands and
Trout Brook to continue, as well as the erosion of the landfill's
steeply sloped sides. Thus, while it is the least costly
alternative by far, with a present worth of $2.5 million, and
is technically feasible, it provides only limited protection to
public health and the environment. As such, it is rejected as
being ineffective in achieving CERCLA objectives.
The RCRA landfill alternative costs $150 million more than
the next most expensive alternative, yet its effectiveness is
not increased correspondingly. It would eventually result in
total or near-total control of adverse impacts, but allows
them to continue during its construction period, which will
be longer than for other alternatives. Moreover, its con-
struction-related impacts will be greater than for the other
alternatives, as discussed above.
Because it prevents off-site migration of contaminated ground
water, the RCRA landfill alternative provides the best isolation
of wastes from the environment of all the alternatives considered.
However, its technical feasibility, effectiveness, and reliability
must be balanced against its extremely high cost and low implement-
ability, both of which stem from the size and complexity of the
-------
--. ----_.~- _._----..~~-----.._--
-48-
Capping controls the release of gas~s from the landfill and
reduces infiltration. As such, its value is based on preventive
maintenance and its cost must be balanced against the reduction
in O&M costs due to reduced volumes of leachate.
The steep slopes bordering the landfilled areas necessitate
terracing to support the continuous clay cap. Gabion terracing
has been proposed, which is a less common but well-established
technology. Implementability is hampered by the need to exte~d
the cap under the lSO-foot-wide ~ight-of-way of the New Jersey
Power and Light Company, which: runs through the middle of the
site.
The reliability of the cap will depend largely on the straight-
forward O&M program, which will include maintenance of the
vegetative cover and any repairs, as necessary, to the cap or
the gabion terraces.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
A public meeting was held in Chester Township on July 14,
at which the NJDEP presented the results of the RI/FS and
recommended remedy, including the alternate water supply.
1986,
the
Movement of ground water off-site is both the primary contaminant
pathway identified at the Combe Fill South site and the focus
of public concern, since it impacts the area's drinking water
quality. Other concerns include continued leachate generation,
degradation of Trout Brook, and odors emanating from the site.
Local officials, environmental groups, and residents are in
agreement regarding the recommended alternative described here.
The most critical issue is the time it will take to identify
the impacted area and to implement the alternate water system
to ensure a supply of safe drinking water. Residents strongly
support the alternate water supply, although some residents are
anxious over the final determination of the impacted area.
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
The remedial alternatives developed for the Combe Fill South
site involve both control of the contamination source and
mitigation of contaminant migration off-site, with one exception.
Alternative 2, construction of an on-site RCRA landfill, entails
only source control, although with a high degree of effectiveness.
Installation of a full RCRA "model" cap would require the
purchase of approximately 13S acres of surrounding property to
regrade the site such that the surface slopes are reduced to
three to five percent. This additional acreage could also
provide temporary storage of excavated fill material during
-------
-49--
however, is considered inappropriate for the site and further
may pose a threat to the remaining hardwood wetlands that lie
south and west of the site.
EPA has an established policy of making every effort to comply
with RCRA regulations whenever appropriate and technically
feasible. Without expanding and extensively regrading the site,
therefore, the multi-layered cap covering the entire site could
be upgraded to a full RCRA "model" cap over 16 acres (25 percent)
of the landfilled area by the ~ddition of a plastic liner.
This liner can only be install-ed in relatively level areas to
avoid slippage or subsidence of the layers above it.
The effect of the plastic liner on the cap's overall permeability
has not yet been quantified. The clay layer has been designed
to meet the RCRA performance criterion of 10-7 cm/sec permeability.
However, addition of the plastic liner in the level fill areas
would provide an added degree of reliability and would also
satisfy the structural criteria for the RCRA "model" cap, in
accordance with EPA's policy o( full RCRA compliance whenever
technically feasible. The present worth of the liner is $2.1
million, or four percent of the total costs. Cost-benefit will
be determined more precisely during conceptual design of the
selected remedy through the use of a computer similation program
known as the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance
(HELP) model. This process will indicate under what conditions
the landfill cap will attain full RCRA compliance.
Compliance with the RCRA performance criterion allows a clay
cap to be installed without extensive regrading of fill material.
As such, the purchase of adjoining properties is not necessary.
This in turn minimizes the threat of landfilling to the hardwood
wetland immediately southwest of the site, in accordance with
Executive Order 11990 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. If
capping is part of the selected remedy, therefore, it will be
possible to comply with both RCRA and wetlands regulations.
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The alternative deemed most appropriate for the Combe Fill South
site is Alternative 3D. The technical components of this
alternative are:
1.
An alternate water supply with interim bottled
water for affected residences
2.
I
An active collection and treatment system for
-------
-- ----- --~-..---------------- ~~---
-50-
3.
Expanded environmental monitoring of water, air,
soils, and leachate
4.
A multi-layered, terraced cap that covers the land-
filled areas and extends under the utility company
right-of-way
5.
Pumping and on-site treatment of shallow ground
water and leachate, with discharge to Trout Brook
6.
Surface water controls to accommodate runoff from
both normal precipitation and storms
7.
Security fencing, an access road, and general site
preparation
8.
A second-phase feasibility study to evaluate the
need for remediation of the deep aquifer
As discussed in the previous s~ction, the multi-layered cap
shown in Figure 7 is designed to meet the RCRA performance
criterion of 10-7 cm/sec permeability. Upgrading to a full
RCRA "model" cap wherever it is technically feasible is con-
sidered appropriate for this remedy as it is consistent with
established EPA policy to strive to comply fully with RCRA
requirements.
The main concern over pumping deep wells is the possibility
of drawing contaminated ground water down from the shallow
aquifer. Again, due to the fractured nature of the bedrock,
patterns of vertical flow and adequacy of recovery are impos-
sible to predict. Consequently, a more reasonable approach
is to remediate the shallow aquifer to achieve the desired
reduction in contaminant levels and then evaluate the need
for deep aquifer pumping in a second-phase feasibility study.
For the shallow pumping system, two lines of withdrawal will
be installed downgradient--i.e., to the northeast and south-.
west along the site's perimeter. The combined actions of
these two well clusters will collect any leachate produced
along with the shallow ground water.
Excluding the no action and on-site disposal alternatives,
the present worth estimates given in Table 6 define a sub-
stantial range of costs with reasonably discrete breaks.
Alternatives 3C and 3D are the lowest cost alternatives
within this range, with respective present worths of $49.3
million and $52.2 million. Because 3C was the basis for
3D, the technical justification for the additional $2.9
million has already been discussed in the description of
-------
-51-
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M)
The O&M costs for the recommended alternative are itemized in
Table 10,- along with the direct and indirect capital costs.
Funding for O&M expenditures will be provided through New
Jersey's Spill Compensation Fund. The New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection will be responsible for implementing
the O&M program. EPA contributions to O&M will be as specified
in CERCLA and the NCP.
SCHEDULE
The schedule for implementation of the selected remedy is as
follows:
Project Milestone
Approve Remedial Action
Date
September 1986
Complete Enforcement
Negotiations
.
Amend Cooperative Agreement
for Design
Contingent upon
Start Design
reauthorization of
Complete Design
CERCLA or State funding
FUTURE ACTIONS
Long-term O&M considerations will reflect the gradual reduction
in the amount of contaminated ground water/leachate requiring
treatment. As the shallow (saprolite) aquifer is remediated,
the option of deep pumping will be reconsidered as a possible
means of removing contaminated ground water from the bedrock
aquifer. Long-term environmental monitoring, the most expensive
O&M line item, is essential to evaluate the effectiveness of
-------
-52-
TABLE 10
ALTERNATIVE 3D
CAPPING WITH EXTENSIVE SHALLOW PUMPING AND ON-SITE TREATMENT
A.
1.
CAPITAL COSTS
Direct
2.
b.
c.
a.
b.
Fence, locking gate, warning signs
Monitoring wells installation
(10 shallow, 10 deep)
Access road sedments
Site preparation
1. General waste cleaning
2. Cap perimeter cleaning
and grading.
3. Excavate wastes in power-line
Right-of-way
Capping, terracing and revegetation
1. Multi-layered clay cap and
revegetation
2. Gabion terracing
3. Installation of plastic liner
in level areas
Active gas collection and treatment
system
Surface water controls
1. Cap berms and reinforced chutes
2. Cap perimeter paved ditches
Shallow well pumping system
Wastewater treatment (RBC) and
discharge to Trout Brook
Alternate water supply
1. Temporary bottled water
2. Permanent alternate supply
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
] .
Subtotal for Direct Capital Costs
Indirect
a.
Engineering and design @ 15%
Legal and administrative @ 5%
Contingency @ 25%
Subtotal for Indirect Capital Costs
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
COSTS .ill
111,000
270,000
300,000
1,497,000
76,000
767,000
20,507,000
1,015,000
1,600,000
1,763,000
185,000
336,000
1,296,000
1,364,000
69,000
610,000
31,766,000
4,764,900
1,588,300
7,941,500
14,294,700
-------
-53-
TABLE 10 (continued)
CAPPING WITH EXTENSIVE SHALLOW PUMPING AND ON-SITE TREATMENT
COSTS ($/YR)
B.
O&M ACTIVITIES (30-YEAR LI~8)
7,000
10.
1.
Monthly fence inspection and repair
2.
Monitoring
a.
Quarterly sampling of monitoring
wells, air, and surface water
Analytical services for quarterly
sampling
20,000
b.
220,000
3.
Access road maintenance and repair
2,000
4.
Cap maintenance and repair
a.
Inspections, runoff and subsidence
repairs.
vegetation mowing, fertilizing, and
reseeding
Gabion terrace maintenance and repair
60,000
b.
47,000
c.
14,000
5.
6.
7.
9.
Active gas venting maintenance and repair
Surface-water control maintenance and repair
Shallow pumping maintenance and repair
Alternative water supply service charges
67,000
6,000
151,000
10,000
Subtotal:
584,000
Wastewater treatment
Years 1-5 @ 100 gpm
Years 6-10 @ 35 gpm
Years 11-30@ 20 gpm
and disposal
89,000
53,000
38,000
ANNUAL O&M:
Years 1-5
Years 6-10
Years 11-30
673,000
637,000
622,000
$6,091,919
TOTAL O&M:
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH:
-------
'--'
'--'
'--'
'---'
-...-.
L...-J
'"-,
4. ~
L'
'1/
L. J
.LJ
Appendix A.
SUMMARY OF SHALLOW MONITORING WELLS PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
Combe Fill South Lan~fi1l
PARAJ.1ETER S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 :$-6
DATE SAMPLED 9/4/85 9/5/85 8/29/85 9/4/85 '8/28/85 8/28/85
VOLATILES, ppb
Benzene 64.7 BM @ 4.4 80.2 BM @ 4.4 ND BM @ 4.4
Chlorobenzene ND 30.3 21.1 18.2 ND ND
Chloroethane ND ND BM @ 10 62.0 ND ND
Ch 10rofonn ND ND ND ND 57.5 ND
1,1-0ichloroethane 65.2 ND 51.4 BM @ 4.7 ND ND
1,2-Dichloroethane ND ND ND 6.10 NO ND
1,1-0ichloroethylene ND ND ND NO . , tlD NO
1,2-Dichloropropane ND ND BM ~ 6 ND ND ND ~
I
Ethylbenzene ND ND BM @ 7.2 ND NO ND ......
Methylene chloridea 56.0 4.44 18.4 8.2 4.67 4.Q7
Tetrachloroethylene ND NO BM @ 4.1 NO NO ND
Toluene 1370 ND 68.2 NO ND NO
Trans-l,2-dichloroethylene ND NO 8.02 NO ND NO
Trichloroethylene ND ND 4.04 NO NO NO
Vi nyl ch lor ide ND ND BM @ 10 ND ND ND
ACID/PHENOLICS, ppb
2,4-Dimethylphenol ND ND ND ND ND ND
2-Nitrophenol ND ND NO ND ND ND
Phenol ND NO NO BM @ 1. 5 NO ND
NO = Not detected.
BM = Below method detection limit.
-------
Appendix A (continued)
SUMMARY OF SHALLOW MONITORING WELLS PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
Combe Fill South Landfill
PARAr£TER S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6
DATE SAMPLE 0 9/4/85 9/5/85 8/29/85 9/4/85 8/28/85 8/28/85
BASE/NEUTRALS, ppb
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether NO NO NO BM @ 5.8 NO NO
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate NO BM @ 11 NO NO BM @ 10 NO
1,2-Dichlorobenzene NO 9.71 NO 7.25 NO NO
1,4-Dichlorobenzene NO 39.4 NO 10.1 NO NO
Di-ethyl phthalate NO NO 10.2 NO NO NO >
'Di-n-butyl phthalate NO BM @ 11 NO. BM @ 10 NO NO I
Di-n-octyl phthalate NO NO NO NO NO NO N
Isophorone NO NO NO NO NO NO
Naphthalene NO NO 3.16 NO NO ' NO
N-nitrosodiphenyl amine NO NO NO NO NO NO
PESTICIDES/PCBs, ppb NO NO NO NO NO NO
METALS, p~
Ber yll i urn NO NO BM @ 0.002 NO , NO NO
Cadm i LI1I NO NO NO BM @ 0.003 NO NO ..
Chranium NO BM @ 0.01 0.02 0.03 8M @ 0.02 NO
Copper 0.01 0.0t. 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.04
Lead 8M @ 0.01 '0.014 0.022 0.009 0.028 0.017
NO = Not detected.
8M = Below method detection 11m it.
I
I
_Co ~
-------
t ..J
I
t- I
L - I
t _I
LI
LJ
Li
LI
t_J
Appendix A (continued)
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL SAMPLES
Combe Fill South Landfill
L. ~
u
PARAMETER S-l S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6
DATE SAMPLEO 9/4/85 9/5/85 8/29/85 9/4/85 8/28/85 8/28/85
METALS, ppn
'Mercury NO NO 8M@0.0002 NO 8M@0.0002 8M@0.0002
Ni c ke 1 NO 8M@0.01 0.02 0.03 NO 8M@0.009
Selenium NO NO NO NO 8M@0.005 NO
I 8M@0.01 8M@0.009 8M@0.01
; S11 ver NO NO NO
: Th a 11 i tJ1I 8M@0.005 NO 8M@0.005 NO NO NO
:Zinc 0.05 0.10 0.24 0.04 NO 0.04
)-
. I
MISCELLANEOUS, ppb w
Cyanides NO NO NO NO NO NO
Phenols 270 NO NO NO NO NO
NO = Not detected.
-------
. I ..-.1
I I 0 - ,. . Q Q . . , '~I
..-.. . II 'I 0 oj .. .. .. .. " II
Appendix B.
SUMMARY OF PRIORITY PPllUTANTS
OEEP MONITORING WEllS
Combe ftll South Landftll
I'ARA~TER 0-1 D-2 0-3 0-4 0-5 0-6 0-7 D-8 0-9 OW-2 DW-4
MTE SAMPLED 8/28/85 8128185 9/4/85 8128/85 8/28/85 8129185 9/4/85 ~/4/85 9/4/85 9/5/85 9/5/85
VOLATILES, ppb
. Benzene NO NO NO NO 16.9 39.1 66.4 31.5 18.6 NO 252
Chlorobenzene NO NO NO NO NO BM tt 6 9.88 10.8. NO NO BM tt 6
: Chloroethane NO NO NO NO NO NO 22.5 74.3 BM tt 10 NO NO
: Chloroform NO 209 NO 82.6 NO NO NO NO NO Nil 155
: 1,1-0tchloroethane NO 6.41 NO NO 10.6 BM tt 4.7 NO . 14.8 30.2 NO NO
i 1,2-0tchloroethane NO 7.98 NO NO 40.5 37.2 NO 11.2 4.54 NO 14.2
i 1,1-0ichloroethylene NO 6.41 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
. 1.2-0tchloropropane NO NO NO NO NO NO NO BM ~ 6 NO NO NO
. Ethylbenzene NO NO NO NO NO NO 34.2 11.7 Nil NO NO
Methylene chlortdea 5.92 176.07 16.0 NO 9.77 NO 20.0 18.8 12.6 9.3 20.6
Tetrachloroethylene NO 14.3 NO ,m 6.89 BM tI 4.1 NO NO. NO NO 5.58 >
Toluene NO Nil NO NO NO . NO 1140 NO NO NO NO I
.c-
Trans-l,2-dlchloroethylene NO NO NO 5.40 25.8 47.5 NO NO NO NO 17.5
Trichloroethylene NO 8.34 NO NO 2.72 26.0 NO NO NO NO 56.8
Vtnyl chlortde NO NO NO NO NO BM tI 10 NO NO NO NO BM tI 10
ACIO/PHENOLICS, ppb
2,4-0Imethylphenol NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 3.12 NO NO NO
2-Nttrophenol NO NO NO NO NO NO NO BM ~ 3.7 NO NO NO
Phenol NO 2.35 NO NO 2.75 NO NO NO NO NO NO
BASE/NEUTRALS, ppb
Bls (2-chloroethyl) ether NO NO NO NO NO NO NO BM tt 5.9 NO NO NO
81s (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate BM tI 11 NO NO BM tI 10 NO BM tI 11 NO BM '10 BM , 10 NO NO
1,2-0Ichlorobenzene NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 5.58 1.92 NO NO
1,4-Dlchlorobenzene NO BM tI 4.6 NO NO BM tI 4.5 NO NO 14.2 NO NO NO
Ot-ethyl phthalate NO NO NO NO BM II 10 NO NO 8M , 10 NC NO NO
OI-n-butyl phthalate BM , 11 NO NO BM '10 BM @I 10 NO NO BM '10 &14 ~ 10 NO BM tI 10
OI-n-octyl phthalate BM'l1 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Isophorone NO 21.9 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Naphthalene NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 3.24 NO NO NO
N-nttrosodtphenylamtne NO NO NO NO NO NO NO BM tt 2 NO NO NO
aCorrected based on analysts of QA/QC samples.
NO . Not detected.
-------
Appendix B (continued)
PARAMETER
DATE SAMPLED
SUMMARY OF PRIORITY POllUTANTS
DEEP MONITORING WELLS
Combe Ffl1 South Landffl1
0-1
8/28/85
0-2
8/28/85
0-3
9/4/85
0-4
8/28/85
0-5
8/28/85
0-6
8/29/85
0-7
9/4/85
0-8
9/4/85
D-9
9/4/85
OW-2
9/5/85
OW-4
9/5/85
PESTICIOES/PCBS, ppb
PETALS, ppm
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Arsenic
Sery]) ium
Cadmfum
ChromiUli
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenfum
Sflver
Thallfum
line
NO NO NO NO BM ~ 0.01 NO NO NO NO NO NO
NO NO NO NO NO BM ~ 0.002 NO NO NO NO NO
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO BM ~ 0.01 BM ~ 0.009 BM ~ 0.009
0.04 0.007 0.03 BM ~ 0.006 BM ~ 0.006 8M P 0.006 0.02 8M ~ 0.009 BM ~ 0.009 0.011 NO
0.009 8M ~ 0.005 0.01 BM ~ 0.005 0.008 0.008 0.007 BM ~ 0.005 . 0.014 NO NO ~
I
8M ~ 0.0002 0.0002 NO BM ~ 0.0002 BM ~ 0.0002 8M ~ 8.0002 NO NO NO NO NO \..n
NO NO NO NO NO NO 0.02 NO NO NO NO
NO 8M ~ 0.005 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
NO NO NO NO NO NO 8M (I 0.01 BM ~ 0.01 NO BM (I 0.005 8M ~ 0.005
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO:
0.02 0.03 BM ~ 0.04 NO 0.09 0.02 0.38 BM ~ 0.04 0.01
MISCELLANEOUS, ppb
Cyanfdes
Pheno 15
NO
NO
29.5
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
428
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO . Not detected.
8M . 8e1ow method detectfon Ifmft.
I
I
1-
.......,
.-- I
'--'
,--,
.--,
,--.,
r-r
,--,
,....,
'1
r--t
r--1
rI
~
r--!,
,..-;
r-!.
,--,
-------
A-6
Appendix C.
LEACHATE SEEP QUALITy'SUMMARya',b' --'U .u" -.- .. ,
Combe Fill South Landfill
PRIORITY POLLUTANT LEACHATE SEEP
CONTAMINANTS L-1 L-2 L-3, L-6 L-7 L-8
Volatiles, ppb 69 15 162c 103c 1084c 137c
Acid/Phenolics, ppb 3 1 0 7 0 0
Base/Neutral~, ppb 19 34 48 33 . 2 71
Pesticides/PCBs, ppb 0 0 0 0 0 0
Metals, ppm 0.064 0.070 0.110 0.155 3.180 0.680
Cyanides, ppb 0 47 31 38 28 0
Phenols, ppb 100 0 257 247 418 254
..
aStatistical calculations assume BM = 1/2 detection limit and ND = O.
bConcentrations adjusted in accordance with QA/QC review.
CAverage of data from 13 August 1985 and 17 October 1985.
I
-------
]
J
~]
]
]
]
'J
.J
]
]
]
]
]
]
,
]
]
]
]
].
A-7
Appendix D.
LEACHATE SOIL/SEDIMENT QUALITY SUMMARya,b
Combe Fill South Landfill
PRIORITY POLLUTANT LEACHATE SEEP
CONTAMINANTS L-1 L-2 L-3 L-4 L-5 L-6 L-7 L-8
Volatiles, pob 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
. 'Acid/!'h~~~1~c!;. n' - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
pp-
Base/Neutrals, ppb 288 428 1435 190 186 416 69,836 6536
Pesticides/PCBs, ppb 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0
Metal s, ppm 48.0 236.9 56.7 240.9 188.8 76.2 168.1 458.7
Cyanides, ppb 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0
Phenols, ppb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
aStatistical calculations assume BM = 1/2 detection limit and NO = O.
bConcentrations adjusted in accordance with QA/QC review. \
",'.. - --"-
-------
o . .
Append i.x E.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
PRIORITY POLLUTANT CHEMICAL DATA
Combe Fi11 South Landfi11
AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE
TOTAL TOTAL AVERAGE TOTAL AVERAGE TOTAL TOTAL
STATION SAMPLE VOLATILES ACID/PHENOLS BASE/NEUTRALS PESTICIDES/PCBs METALS
STATION LOCATION NUMBER ill TYPE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
WEST BRANCH TROUT BROOK
SE Corner of G. H Water 64 0 5 1 0.1025
Landfi11
Above Bridge E Water NR NR NR NR 0.0685 ~
I
" 00
N of Tingue A, Water .NR NR NR NR 0.057
Upstream of J. M. N Water 15 0 0 0 0.0910
Tingue '
. Tingue Driveway Q Water 1717 0 106 0 0.1185
Sediment 457 0 0 0 61.050
Inf10w to Pond D Water NR NR NR NR 0.0415
Trib. to W. P Water 5 0 0 0 0.5779
Br, Upstream of Sediment 75 0 15.000 5,000 171.400
Pond
EAST BRANCH TROUT BROOK
Headwaters F. L Water 152 0 90 0 0.1723
NR = Not run.
; 8ta.""
..-
-
- ...
-
-
-
-------
'-.I
L-I
L-J
L-J
L-1
L-.
L .
.
.
.
I '
--- ~
'-- J
L ,
L-J
Appendix E (continued)
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
PRIORITY POLLUTANT CHEMICAL DATA
Combe Fill South Landfill
AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE
TOTAL TOTAL AVERAGE TOTAL AVERAGE TOTAL TOTAL
STATION SAMPLE VOLATILES ACID/PHENOLS BASE/NEUTRALS PESTIC IDES/PCBs METALS
STATION LOCATION NUMBERW TYPE ~ ~) ~ ~ (~
EAST BRANCH (Cont.)
HE of Township C Water NR NR NR NR 0.054
line
Below Property K . Water 131 0 0 0 0.0610
Boundary
I
Trib. to E. Br, ;J>
Above Parker Rd. R Water 10 0 . 0 0 1.1392 I
Sediment 76 0 24,800 0 339.950 \0
TROUT BROOK (MAIN SEGMENT)
30-yd below B Water NR NR NR NR 0.0300
Confl uence
of Branches
100-yd upstream S Water 0 0 0 0 0
of long Hi 11 Sediment 23 0 41 0 157.250
Rd.
50-yd upstream T Water 1 0 0 0 0.0040
of Bridge at Sediment 8 0 19 0 111.450
Ranger Station
100-yd upstream U Water 1 0 0 0 0.0025
of Black River
NR = Not run.
-------
------a
--I
I
Appendix E (continued)
SUMMARY Of PREVIOUS SURfACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
PRIORITY POLLUTANT CHEMICAL DATA
Combe fill South landfill
AVERAGE A V ERAGE AVERAGE
TOTAL TOTAL AVERAGE TOTAL AVERAGE TOTAL TOTAL
STATION SAMPLE VOLATILES ACID/PHENOLS BASE/NEIJ.TRALS PESTICIDES/PCBs METALS
STATION LOCATION NUMBERW TYPE ~) ~ leE!?) ~~
BLACK RIVER
300-yd Upstream V Water 0 0 0 0 0.0025 >
of Trout Brook Sediment 21 O . 928 0 124.200 I
.-
o
100-yd Downstream W Water 1 0 0 0 0.0002
". of Trout Brook
-------
,
1----
Appendix F.
SU~Y OF SOIL OATA ON HANO-AUG£REO SOIL SAKUS
CanIIe fill South Landf i 11
. - fIElD A f~D A fMjD A ~I£LD A ~l~D6~ ~I~LD 8 fiELD 0 fiELD 0 fiELD 0 fiELD 0 fiElD C flElDC
---r- A I()RIZOH II HORIZON (LOC 5) (LOC 5) (LOC 6) (LOC 3J A tmlmi 0 ImIZOO Ati(jITmi BiiifTZlii
~W£TER iii IT£ C(M>()SIT£ C(M>OS IT£ 0 tmlZON A ImIZON 0 tIIR I ZON A tIIR I ZON A HORIZON C(MIOS IT/: CO/1>OSIT[ C(WIISIT[ COIf>(IS IT£
OA";"[ SN4Pt.£D 8/21/85 0/22/85 8/22/85 8121/85 8121/85 8/22/85 8/22/85 8/22/85 8/22/85 8/22/85 8/23/85 8123/85
mATlLESa, ppb
~~thylene chloride 569 trP Nnb fI)b tt)b MJb Nnb Nnb NIJb MJb NI)b N()b
Tetrachloroethylene If) t() fI) t() 5b,c 4c 3b,c 6b "Jl,c "Jl,c 2 1
ACID/PHEt«)LICS, p~
PentachlorOphenol NO 1SOC fI) t() t() tf) tf) tf) tf) fI) NO ff)
BASE/NEUTRAlS, ppb
Oenlo (A) pyrene 310C t() fI) ff) NO ff) NO NO ff) NO NO t(I
Ois (2-ethylhexyl) 1200 2200 1SOC 960 770 UOC IlOC 1SOC IlOC 1SOC 3:1)( 240C
phthalate >
16()b ,c I
Di-n-butyl phthalate It) ff) ff) It) ff) tQ ff) IlOC ff) fI) ff) ......
Di-n-octyl phthalate NO 1SOC tf) ff) It) fI) ff) ff) NO NO NO ti) ......
PESTICIDES/PCBs, ppb
4.4'-00£ NO ff) NO ff) 11 If) ff) to NO ff) NO NO
4,4'-ooT fI) ff) fI) ff) 11 fI) ff) ff) ff) fI) fI) fI)
METAlS, ppn
Arsenic 12 18 26 29 ro 26 18 18 21 23 12 9.1
Beryl I iUII NO 3.0 1.6 3.3 1.7 1.1 1.4 1.2 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0
Caaniuu 4.7 3.9 1.9 3.1 2.7 2.0 4.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 2.0 2.1
ChraniUD 33 51 50 46 25 22 22 21 21 21 12 9.1
Copper 33 51 35 14 ro 40 22 26 24 22 15 1.0
Lead 31 21 14 11 2 14 25 26 29 11 16 9.7
Mercury tf) t() ff) tf) 0.1 NO 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
Nickel 15 11 14 21 13 10 13 9.0 14 12 tf) fI)
Silver fI) It) ff) fI) It) 41 tf) t{) NO fI) t{) tf)
Tha" i l1li NO 3.6 5.1 4.5 It) t{) NO tf) tl) tf) NO t{)
Zinc 48C 61 52 60 54 8310 52 60 62 44 46 33
MISCEllAf£OUS, ppb
CyanidE'S tf) It) tf) t(I It) tf) tf) t{) NO tf) NO NO
Pheno h NO ff) NO ff) NO tf) 1000 NO t(I 1200 NO NO
anata has been adjusted to reflect concentrations in QA/QC field and trip blank samples.
bAlsa Found in method blank. ,
cE\timated value. Value is below method detect ion limit.
ff) . Not detected. , <,
r--1 t-... '"'- ..-.-. ~ --.
-------
A-12
Appendix G.
PR TOR TTY POLLUTANT CHEMTCAL ANALYSES OF SOIL' BOR lNG/ROCK COR TNG SAMPLES a
Combe Fill South Landfill
PTEZOMETER SB-2 - PTEZOMETER SB~3 PTEZOMETER SB-4
SAMPLE TNTERVAL (ft) SAMPLE TNTERVAL (ft) SAMPLE TNTERVAL (ft)
P.AI1AMF.T£RS 36-38 42-48 12-14 28-30 14-16 22-44
OATE SAMPLED 11/21/84 11/21/84 11/15/84 11/15/84 11/27/84 11/27/84
VOLATILES, ppb
Carbon tetrachloride NO NO NO 350 NO NO
Chloroform 558 658 NO 530 5995 5595
Methylene Chloride 3324 3864 NO 515 NO NO
Tetrachloroethylene NO NO 805 NO 1395 NO
T&)luene 395 495 955 465 2995 NO
ACTO/PHENOLICS, ppb
Pentachlorophenol NO BM @I 825 BM @I 825 BM @I 825 BM @I 825 NO
Phenol NO NO BM @I 825 NO NO ND
BASE/NEUTRALS, ppb
Butyl benzylphthalate 350 NO NO NO NO NO
Oiethylphthalate BM @I 330 NO NO NO NO NO
Oi-n-buylphthalate 500 720 6000 450 560 570
Phenanthrene 8m @I 330 . NO NO NO NO NO
PESTICIDES/PCBs, ppb NO NO NO NO NO NO
METALS, ppm
Arsenic 2.6 2.6 2.9 2.4 NO NO
Cadmium 1.1 4.7 3.7 2.4 1.1 3.4
Chromium NO NO NO 5.9 . NO NO
Copper 3.9 120.0 56.0 31.0 20.0 71.0 I
Nickel NO 5.0 NO NO 6.4 14.0
Zinc 16.0 61.0 91.0 NO 13.0 38.0
MISCELLANEOUS, ppb [
CyanideS NO NO NO NO NO NO
Phenols NO NO NO NO NO NO
BM a Below method detection limit.
NO . Not detected.
aOata have been adjusted to ref1ect contamination in QA/QC fie1d and trip b1ank samples (see Appendix CC).
I
.'. . - _.
I
~.,., :to:.--:;- ~. -. -~...-.~..:'~
-
_.-
-------
----.---
-~ A-13
- Appendix H. u
'
-J
SU~1~RY OF PRIORITY POLLUTANT CHEMICAL ANALYSES ON TEST PITS
~ Combe Fill South Landfill
~J
TP-1 TP-1 TP-2 TP-3
J COMPOSITE DISCRETE COMPOSITE COMPOSITE
PARAMETER 0~9 ft 9-11 ft 0-12 ft 0-12 ft
DATE SAMPLED 8/27/85 8/27/85 8/27/85 8/27/85
-, -...-...
, VOLATILES, ppb
- ---'
-~. Tetrachloroethylene NOa NDa NDa NDa
I
j ACIDS/PHENOLICS, ppb ND ND ND ND
.l'/ BASE/NEUTRALS, ppb
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) 120b . 370b 1300 ND
-- phthal ate,
-,J
PESTICIDES/PCBs, ppb
-J Aldrin ND ND 132 ND
Dieldrin ND ND 76 ND
-., METALS, ppm
.
..'
Arsenic 71 52 42 38
-J Beryll ium 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0
Cadmium 2.9 ND 13 1.3
Chromium 22 19 24 16
Copper 34 26 37 20
' Lead ND ND 30 10
..I Nickel 7.7 7.2 12 7.5
Zinc 47C 38c 148C sac
fl, MISCELLANEOUS, ppb
..
Cyanides ND ND ND ND
j Pheno 1 s ND NO NO NO
I aData corrected based on QA/QC review.
J bEstimated value; value is below method detection limit.
cValue is estimated because of interferences.
I ND = Not detected.
oJ
"'-'-~ . -..-.
.J
-------
. . 0
Append ix I.
PRIORITY POLLUTANT CHEMICALS MEASURED IN AIR SAMPLES
AT COMBE FILL SOUTH LANDFILLa.b
PRIO~ITY POLLUTANT UP WI NO (~g/m3t ON-SITE (~g/m3t DOWN WI NO (~gim3)
CHE MI CAl AVE. RANGE AVE. RANGE AVE. RANGE
Vo 1 aU 1 es
Benzene '0 0 16 0-144 0 0
E thy 1 ben zene . 6 0-10 39 0-276 8 0-13
Methylene chloride 11 0-30 9 0- 30 10 0-30
Tetrachloroethylene 4 0- 6 8 0- 30 8 0-18 ;J>
To 1 uene 26 20-30 48 . 0-216 33 . 22-47 I
Trichloroethylene <1 0- 1 0-
5 0- 30 0 0 ~
Base/Neutrals
Diethyl phthalate 0.004 0.003-0.005 0.005 0-0.014 0.005 0-0.011
Di-n-butyl phthalate 0.001 0-0.003 0.0015 0-0.007 0.001 0-0.002
Metal s
An t imony 0 0 0.004 0-0.069 0.034 0-0.061
8eryll ium 0.004 0.0034-0.0051 0.001 0-0.0024 0.002 0.0015-0.0029
Cadm hili 0.005 0-0.0139 0.002 0-0.0089 0.002 0-0.039
Chran i urn 0 0 0.014 0-0.2563 0 0
Copper 0.147 0.057-0.223 O. 126 0.036-0.406 0.117 0.047-0.164
Lead 0.279 0.081-0.611 0.158 0-0.438 0.293 0.181-0.448
Ni c ke 1 0.012 0-0.025 0.009 0-0.029 0.036 0.015-0.066
Zinc 9.3 8.6-9.9 1.2 0-4.5 3.3 0-7.8
aContaninants found at grE.ater than 8M (i.e.. greater than the detection level) at one or more stations
based on QA/QC correctiors. QAlQC corrections include subtracting filter blank data given on Table
CC-26. .
bStatistical averages assune 8M = 1/2 the detection limit and NO = O.
t.~
r--t
r--1
r--t
r-1
r---1
r--1
r--t
r---
r--t
r--
r--
,---.
r---..
r--
n
-------
Completion.
Res~onsiveness Summary
of Re~edial Investigation/Feasibility
Combe Fill.South Landfill
Chester and Washington Townships
Morris County
New Jersey
.
-------
-2-
:
This Combe Fill South Responsiveness Summary documents the concerns of the local
residents, municipal, state and federal officials, along with the Department's
responses during- two. public meetings, six informal briefings and the public
comment period. Public meetings were held at the initiation of the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and at the conclusion of the RI/FS.
During the cO-urse of the RI/FS, the Department held six informal briefings to
discuss the praject status with local, state and federal officials, as well as
representatives af the Upper Raritan Watershed Association, HALT (Help Avoid a
Landfill Tragedy), and the Interlacal Coordinating Committee consisting af local
residents and officials of Chester and Washington Townships, Morris Caunty, New
Jersey.
This Responsiveness Summary is presented in four sections:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
RI/FS Initiation Meeting:
Infarmal Briefings
RI/FS Completian Meeting:
Remaining Cancerns
July 23, 1984
July 14, 1986
Attachments
.
A. Informatian Package: RI/FS Initiation Meeting
B. List af Attendees: RI/FS Initiation Heeting
C. Information Package: RI/FS Completion Meeting
D. List of Attendees: RI/FS Completion Meeting
-------
-3-
Responsiveness Summary
Completion of Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Combe Fill South Landfill
Chester and Washington Townships
Morris County, New Jersey
Study
1.
RI/FS Initiation Meetin~
A public meeting was held at the Washington Township Municipal Building in
Long Valley, New Jersey by the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) on July 23, 1984 to discuss the initiation of the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the Combe Fill South
Landfill site. Notification of the meeting was accomplished through press
releases sent to all newspapers listed in the Combe Fill South Community
Relations Plan and mailings to all parties listed in the "Contacts" section
of the plan. An information package, including an agenda, fact sheet,
overview of the community relations program at Superfund hazardous waste
sites, and the steps involved in a major hazardous waste site cleanup, was
given to all attendees at the beginning of the meeting. (See Attachment A.).
.
Approximately 50 people attended the meeting, including local and state
officials. (See Attachment B.) The meeting was opened by Washington
Township Committeeman Tracy Tobin and Vice-Mayor Robert Schmeider. After
opening remarks by Jorge Berkowitz, explanation of the community relations
program by Grace Singer and site overview by Len Romino (all NJDEP
representatives), Patrick Lawler of Lawler, Matusky, and Skell}' Engineers
gave a detailed presentation of the activities planned for the RI/FS. The
meeting was then opened for discussion. Several questions were asked by
citizens regarding sampling activities. potable water and other issues.
Following is a summary, organized by subject, of all major
questions/ comments raised at this meeting and NJDEP' s responses. Major
subjects include:
o
Well Testing;
Interim measures;
Project schedule;
Cost/Funding; and
Other issues.
o
o
o
o
-------
-4-
. .
Well Testing
Question: Will we be informed if you find dangerous levels of volatile organics
as a result of testing residential wells?
Response: Yes, the Department would contact residents immediately if this were
the 'case.
Question: Has there been any testing of on-site wells?
Response: Tests will be conducted. as part of the Remedial Investigation.
Residential potable wells, 'as well as on-site monitoring wells will be
tested.
Question: What types of tests will be done and which wells will be tested?
Response: The type of sampling has not yet been determined. Two important
criteria will be the historical analytical data and the direction of
ground water flow.
Question: Is there State money left over for well testing that could be used to'
test Mr. Ling's well?
Response: There may be some money left to test his well. We will look into this.
(Note: This well was sampled in February 1982 and March 1985)
Interim Measures
Question: Should we continue using bottled water, as advised?
Response: Yes, that would be advisable until the extent of contamination is
known.
Question: Why can't water be supplied to the o~ers of contaminated wells using
Superfund monies?
Response: We will set up a meeting with township officials to discuss that
possibility.
'Question: Some residents have visible leachate seepage on their
Couldn't something be done for such an extreme situation?
properties.
Response: A direct health hazard must be demonstrated before taking immediate
measures. This problem will be addressed by the RIfFS.
Comment:
A letter from Dr. and Mrs. Winston Bostick (who live on Parker Road)
was read at the meeting. In the letter, the Bosticks state that they
are plagued with odors from the landfill and asked that some of the
Superfund monies be used for immediate relief, such as piping,
drainage, leachate cOllection, and filtration, rather than on a
Feasibility Study.
Response: Dr. Berkowitz responded that he appreciated the Situation and their
-------
-5-
de-termine the extent of the problems at the site and to evaluate the
best way to remedy them.
Project Schedule
Question: Will- this project actually take six years to ccmplete?
Response:
Generally. the RI/FS takes nine months to complete. At the e~d of the
study, if we have been successful in addressing the problem and
developing a remedy, the process may not take six years. Such a time
period might be needed to complete the entire cleanup (including
engineering design, construction/removal).
Question: Can the DEP send us a copy of the contractor's proposed work schedule?
Response: Yes.
Cost/Funding
Question: Are we guaranteed that there. will be Superfund money available to fund
this project once the RI/FS is completed?
Response: That depends upon the reauthorization of Superfund.
not reauthorized. the Department can use State funds.
If Superfund is
Question: Do you have a step-by-step breakdown of the costs of the contract?
Response: Yes, that is public information.
Other Issues
Question: Will a biological study of trees and animals be conducted?
Response: When we study the surface and ground water of a site to see if it meets
NJDEP standards it is l.mplied that we are studying all biological
factors.
Question: Will a water filtration system be installed as part of the site remedy?
Response: That depends on the types of chemicals found.
Question: Will there be interim status reports?
Response: There will be meetings with the Interlocal Coordinating Committee and
interested parties are welcome. When officials or citizens request a
meeting, we will schedule a briefing.
Question: Over the past two years there has been above average rainfall.
this affect the movement of the leachate?
Does
Response:
Yes, heavy rain accelerates the generation of leachate from the
landfill. Ground water movement is not usually affected by rainfall
but the extremely wet conditions from two years of heavy rain have had
-------
,"
n
-6-
II.
Informal Briefings
o
Throughout the course of the RI/FS. NJDEP staff attended six informal
briefings to address the concerns of and receive input from the community
and to apprise them of the status of the RI/FS, These briefings were held
with loc~l. state and federal representatives, as well as members of HALT,
the Inter local Coordinating Committee, and the Upper Raritan Watershed
Association, Following is ~ summary 0: these six briefings:
July 30. 1984: This criefing. in accordance with the Combe Fill South
Request for Proposals (RFF), took place shortly after the public meeting
regarding the initiation of the RI/FS. It was held at the Washington
Township Municipal Building. The purpose of this meeting was to provide
NJDEP with previous site data and early input from local representatives
regarding the RI/FS. In addition to NJDEP representatives and the
contractor, those in attendance included representatives of the Chester
Township Board of Health/Environmental Committee, the Washington Township
Board of Health/Environmental Committee, the Upper Raritan Watershed
Association, the Interlocal Coordinating Committee (with Chester and
Washington Township representatives), HALT, and the offices of Senator Foran
and Assemblymen Zimmer and Weidel. The primary issue at this meeting was"
residential well sampling. The agenda included: chronology of events at .
the site, previous sampling conducted by HALT and the Upper Raritan
Watershed Association, sampling to be conducted during the RIfFS, and
various other issues such as ownership of properties adjacent to the site.
o
February 7, 1985: The purpose of this briefing, planned in response to
questions and concerns, was to inform local officials and environmental
groups of the status of the Combe Fill South RI/FS. It was held at the
Chester Township Courtroom. In addition to local and state officials and
representatives from local environmental committees, there was an
unexpectedly large turnout and the briefing soon took the form of a public
meeting. The status of the project was presented, including an explanation
of work .accomplished, work pending, the anticipated work schedule and
NJDEP's Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Program. Several
important issues were raised at this briefing: the request by community
representatives for monthly progress reports from NJDEP; sampling/analysis
of potable wells; sampling/analysis of Trout Brook; on and off-site air
monitoring; noise caused by on-site work; and problems gaining access to a
private property which prevented installation of a monitoring well.
o
June 27, 1985: NJDEP held this informal briefing at the Chester Township
Municipal Building primarily to discuss the results of the surface water and
sediment sampling of Trout Brook and Black River at Hacklebarney State Park.
The data revealed no priority pollutants in the water at any of the sampling
locations. None of the compounds detected in the Brook or River exceeded
the national average (i.e., in comparison with U.S. Geological Survey data
on average contaminant concentrations in sediments throughout the United
States). As such, recreational fishing in Trout Brook and Black River
should not cause adverse health impacts. Other concerns raised at this
briefing focused on the delays to the study and the length of time necessary
for completion. In attendance were representatives of Chester and
-------
-7-
offices of Senator Foran and Assemblymen Zimmer and Weidel. and Congressman
Dean Gallo.
o
November 25. 1985: This meeting was convened by Congressman Dean Gallo. at
his office in Dover. N.J.. to discuss the status of the RI/FS. Attendees
included Congressman Gallo. Assemblymen Zimmer and Weidel. officials of
Chester -and Washington Townships. ar.d representatives of Congressman
Courter's office. HALT. the Interloca: Coordinating Committee. and the Upper
Raritan Watershed Association. Critical Concerns raised by officials
included: certification problems with the subcontracting laboratory and
subsequent delays in awarding a -new contract and setting up a new schedule;
increased costs; QA/QC issues; sampling/analysis time frame and procedures;
and the need for interim measures at the landfill (e.g.. erosion controls
and temporary berms).
o
December 16. 1985: NJDEP held this meeting at the Somerset County
Administration Building to discuss potable well data and implications for
alternative water supplies with local. state. federal and environmental
group representatives. It was decided that. as a short-term solution. NJDEP
would immediately designate an area of potential impacts. Residents within
this area should be provided wit~ bottled water. on an optional basis. and"
NJDEP would work with the Townships to seek reimbursement from the New
Jersey Spill Fund or other public monies. NJDEP's commitment to resolve the
long-term issue of water supply was reaffirmed. The results of the RI would
be reviewed on an'expedited basis and additional potable well sampling would
be conducted to confirm the delineation of an impacted area. Also. NJDEP's
contractor will explore alternative water supplies including construction of
water lines. development of a new well and treatment at the well source.
o
March 31. 1986: This informal briefing was held by NJDEP at the Chester
Township Municipal Building. primarily to discuss the hydrogeological
portion of the RI/FS and the implications for an ultimate remedy. Local.
state and federal representatives, as well as members of the environmental
committees were present at the briefing. Several important issues were
discussed: USEPA and' NJDEP agreed that there are both actual and potential
impacts on well water; NJDEP' s contractor would examine options for a
permanent alternative water supply; the ROD must include an alternative
water supply as an operable unit in order to expedite. the design; a
Preliminary Assessment of the soybean field near the site should be
conducted; the impacted area was reduced in size from the area described in
December 1985 and would be monitored to ensure that the present delineation
is accurate; and the Townships would have to pass an ordinance requiring
-------
-8-
III. RI/FS Completion Meeting
o
3B.
3C.
The Draft Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Report was made available
for public review and comment starting June 23, 1986 at five repositories:
the Chester Township Library in Chester, the Washington Township Public
Library. in Long Valley, the Chester Township Municipal Building, the
Washington Municipal Building in Long Valley and the NJDEP, Division of
Hazardous Site Mitigation in Trenton. The public comment period closed on
July 31, 1986 during which time five letters with various comments were
received by NJDEP (See Attachment E) in addition to comments at the public
meeting discussed below.
A public meeting was held by NJDEP on July 14, 1986 to discuss the results
of the RI/FS at Combe Fill South. Notification of the meeting was
accomplished through press releases sent to local newspapers and mailings to
local and state officials, as well as to NJDEP's list of concerned citizens.
An information package including the agenda and fact sheet was given to all
attendees at the beginning of the meeting. (See Attachment C.)
Approximately 100 people attended (See Attachment D) the meeting which was
opened by Ed Russo, Member of the Chester Township Council, the Upper
Raritan Watershed Association, a~ West Morris HALT. After an overview of"
the situation by Richard Salkie, Acting Director. of the NJDEP Division of
Hazardous Site Mitigation, Ruth Maikish and Patrick Lawler, of Lawler,
Matusky & Skelly Engineers, discussed the results of the RIfFS and presented
the following remedial action alternatives for long-term site remediation:
1.
Minimal action (or "No Action") including the installation of security
fencing around the perimeter of the landfill, installation and sampling
of monitoring wells, reimbursement of costs associated with bottled
water for residents and development of a permanent alternate water
supply for impacted residences.
2.
Construction of an on-site Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) -approved landfill facility including excavation of wastes and
installation, filling and capping of landfill cells. This alternative
would include the purchase of over 100 acres of adjacent property for
the construction of this facility, as well as fencing, well monitoring
and an alternate water supply for impacted residences.
3A.
Installation of a multi-layered clay cap covering existing waste areas,
ground water/leachate collection trench, on-site treatment and disposal
of leachate, passive gas venting, security fencing, and an alternate
water supply for impacted residences.
This alternative is identical to 3A except that it includes two deep
wells to pump contaminated ground water from the bedrock aquifer for
on-site treatment and surface discharge.
This alternative is similar to 3B except that a shallow pumping system
would be used in place of the leachate collection trench to collect and
transport the contaminated shallow ground water to an on-site treatment
facility.
-------
-9-
4.
This includes all components of 3A, as well as an active gas collection
and treatment system, ten deep pumping wells, discharge of treated
effluent to the Lamington River and an upgradient ground water barrier.
SA.
Thi~ alternative is similar
to prevent further off-site
instead of the collection
ground water/leachate.
to 3A except that it provides a slurry wall
migration of ground water in the saprolite
trench and on-sLte treatment facility for
5B.
This alternative is identical to 3A except that the multi-layered cap
does not include a clay layer.
Mr. Salki~ then presented a modified version of Alternative 3C as the alternative
recommended by NJDEP. The components of this alternative include:
o
Multi-layered terraced cap: covering all three fill areas, upgraded in
level areas to a full RCRA "model" cap by the addition of a plastic
liner;
Pumping
On-site
Brook;
Active gas collection and treatment;
Security fencing with warning signs;
Grading, filling, site preparation and access road;
Surface water controls;
Environmental monitoring;
Additional monitoring wells to be installed at the site perimeter; and
Permanent alternative water supply for affected residences.
o
of the shallow aquifer: 48 wells;
treatment of leachate and ground water with discharge to Trout
.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
This meeting was then opened for discussion during which time many questions were
asked by local officials and concerned citizens. These questions, as well as the
written comments received during the public comment period, along with NJDEP' s
responses are summarized below, according to the fOllowing subjects:
o
o
o
o
o
o
Issues regarding remedial action alternatives;
Alternative water supply;
Affected residences/Potential risks;
Cost/Funding;
Schedule; and
-------
o
-10-
..
Issues Regarding Remedial Action Alternatives
Question: There are 43 sites on the New Jersey National Priorities List (~PL)
with priority over this one. How many of those have been capped?
Response:
Each- site must be evaluated individually; capping may not be the r:ost
effective solution at all sit~s. Ar. some of the sites the decision has
been made to cap, it just has not been done yet. There are two or
three that have partial caps at this time.
Question: When will you know if treating the shallow aquifer will take care of
the deeper aquifer's problems?
Response:
There are two ways of finding out: sampling the water quality and
monitoring the hydraulics to verify that the water is being drawn down
as planned. The proble~ with this method is that you may draw
contamination where you do not want it.
*Comment:
The recommendation was made that the proposed landfill capping be done
in a "stepped fashion", thereby allowing the immediate installation o.f
an appropriate liner over the site in order to minimize the impact of'
rain water on the landfilled waste.
Response: The
remedial alternative proposed for the Combe Fill South site would
indeed be constructed in a staged manner, in order to i~mediately
mitigate some or the problems at the site. t'se of a synthetic
liner as one of several cap layers on part or all of the site is .
still under consideration. However, use of a synthetic liner
alone or as the first(mitigative step at the site is inappropriate
for several reasons including:
o
The steep slopes, gullies and other site surface features
make immediate placement of a liner physically impractical.
o
Currently, the site surface has exposed waste ar.d sharp
objects which could easily tear the liner. Even if the liner
were not torn upon placemer.t, direct contact of the membrane
with landfill wastes, particularly leachate, would corrode
the liner.
o
Gases, including methane and volatile organics generated by
the landfill, may also corrode the liner or create
potentially hazardous "bubbles" or gas pockets beneath the
liner as the gases attempt to escape.
o
Therefore, it would be more cost effective to use such a liner as part
of a long-term site remediation program rather than as an interim or
immediate action.
*Paraphrased comment received by NJDEP in correspondence from Theodore A.
-------
-11-
*Comment:
The use of the RCRA multi-layered terraced cap with...a part1al
membrane cover...exceeds the minimum requirements and adequately
reflects site topographic conditions.
Response: The- NJDEP concurs with this comment. (The RCRA
multi-layered cap with a plastic liner throughout.)
"model" cap 1s a
*Comment:
. . . We be:'..ieve that the proposec system of 48 pumping wells... in the
shallow aquifer system is applicable, given the nature of the
saprolitic Zone and the quantities of water present, at least during
the initial phases... We would recommend phasing in deep ground water
pumping in the future if the overburden layers can be sufficiently
dewatered.
Response:
The need for deep aquifer pumping 1n the future can be reevaluated
based on results of the proposed well monitoring program. If the
shallow pumping scheme successfully dewaters the landfill and prevents
the continued off-site migration of contaminants in the ground water
(as measured in the monitoring wells), then deep aquifer pumping
becomes unnecessary. .
*Comment:
We are... concerned wi th the establishment of an ongoing maintenance.
entity responsible for pump and well maintenance. Standby pumping
units and power for the operation of the system should be provided in
the event of a system failure.
Response:
Additional information as to the operation and maintenance of the
proposed shallow pumping system will be provided in the report on the
conceptual design of the recommended alternative. Detailed plans and
specifications should be developed during the final design of the
recommended alternative.
+
Comment:
Mr. Pelletier protests the absence of deep pumping from the recommended
alternative. In light of the fact that ground water has been
determined to be the primary means by which contamination is leaving
the site and that Contamination has been found in both the shallow and
deep aquifer, Mr. Pelletier feels that deep pumping is required. He
recognizes that provision of alternate public potable water will
provide him with safe drinking water, but would also like to be assured
of uncontaminated ground water for his "stream, pond, fields and
forest."
n
'Paraphrased comment received by NJDEP in correspondence from David Peifer.
+Executive Director of the Upper Raritan Watershed Association.
Comment received by NJDEP in correspondence from Michael C. Pelletier, reside~t
-------
o
-12-
..
Response:
As .described in Chapter 4 of the Remedial Investigation (RI), movement
of ground water in the deep bedrock occurs within a network of
fractures and rock cleavages oriented in a northeast and southwest
direction. Although deep monitoring wells were necessary to detect
contamination in this deep aquifer and to test the direction of ground
water movement, direct pumping of the deep aqu:f.fers will provide no
greater assurance of remediation than the proposed shallow pumping
scheme because of the nature of ground water movement in the bedrock.
The three-dimensional network of fractures and cleavages in the bedrock
through which ground water flows is extensive but often not intercon-
nected. Pumping of the deep bedrock at one or more locations will not
provide assurance that all deep ground water flows will be intercepted
because the pumping wells may not be tapping all the contaminated
ground water flow fractures. Furthermore, deep pumping during the
early stages of remediation, i.e., prior to the implementation of the
cap and shallow pumping wells, may draw contaminated shallow ground
water down into the deep aquifer.
The proposed action provides for indirect remediation of the contamina-
tion in the deep ground water. First, the cap will eliminate"
infiltration into the waste pile and so minimize the production and
movement of contaminated leachate. Second, the shallow ground water
pumping scheme will prevent further migration of contaminants into the
deep aquifer. The purpose of shallow ground water pumping is to remove
leachate and to lower the ground water table so that waste is not in
contact with ground water.
In addition, the proposed extensive ground water monitoring program
will provide a quarterly assessment of the effectiveness of the
proposed remediation. Should the proposed remedial measures not be as
effective as expected, deep pumping wells could be installed at a later
date at the perimeter of the site if it is subsequently determined that
such action is necessary.
*Comment: Several issues relating to the discharge of effluent to Trout
Brook were raised including:
o
Applicability of appropriate standards for water quality of
effluent;
Regulation of flows to ensure that channel capacity will not
be exceeded; and
Increased flows and velocities in combination with storm
water flow which will move contaminated sediments downstream
into the Hacklebarney State Park.
o
o
o
-------
-13-
Response:
Effluent discharge limits have been preliminarily established by the
NJDEP to meet stream classification requirements. The on-site
treatment facility will be designed to achieve these requirements. The
final design of the treatment facility, however, must await the results
of a treatability study.
*Comment: "We suggest the installation of a monitoring well downstream of Trout
Brook...in the area of ground water discharge."
Storm water flows and the effects of effluent discharge on flows in
Trout Brook will be further add~essed in the final Feasibility Study.
However, several points can be mentioned at this time: (a) the
proposed effluent discharge location is below the confluence of the
west and east branches of Trout Brook in a stream segment of sufficient
size to accept the effluent discharge; (b) the lowering of the water
table in the landfill vicinity by the pumping wells will produce
significantly less ground water supplied stream baseflow; (c) the
amount of runoff expected from the remediated site will probably be
similar to the current amount of runoff occurring at the site during
times of high ground water (work is presently underway to confirm this
point) ; (d) only small amounts of contaminated sediments currently
exist in the streams because storm water scouring has been steadily
moving sediments downstream to Black River. Even so, these sediments
.
do not show contamination in concentrations warranting remediation.'
Response:
The number and general location of the monitoring wells will be
provided in the conceptual design report based on our understanding of
the local hydrogeology. Final locations can be specified during
detailed design.
*Comment:
Various surface water control issues were raised, particularly storm
water control mechanisms, impacts of uncontrolled flow, potential
on-site uses for clean storm water runoff, the entrapment and contain-
ment of sediment during construction, and thermal impacts.
Response:
The discussion of surface water controls will be examined in the final
FS and conceptual design report and will address several of these
concerns. In general, several points can be made at this time: (a) as
mentioned above, the peak flows of storm water runoff from the
remediated site will probably not be greater than under current normal
wet weather conditions wherein high ground water levels combine with
sparse vegetative cover to increase high peak runoff flows; (b)
although permanent mechanisms to temporarily store runoff during high
rainfall events may have a secondary beneficial impact for stream flow
regulation, they are not intrinsically necessary as part of site
remediation; (c) temporary runoff catch basins and other control
mechanisms during construction are important construction tools that
can be detailed during final design but are beyond the scope of work
for the feasibility and conceptual design reports.
Q
-------
o
-14-
.0
Alternative Water Supply
Question: How many residences will be hooked up to the alternative water system?
Response:
Presently the delineated impacted area includes 40-50 residences.
However, we will continue sampling and that figure could change
depending on the sampling results. The final area will incorporate
safety margins and allow for the extended time frame for site
remediation.
Question: How many of these homes are currently contaminated?
Response: Approximately 25-30.
Question: Do you plan to continue monitoring until an alternative water system is
implemented?
Response: Yes.
Question: Are there plans to provide these people with bottled water in the
interim? .
Response: They can use bottled water at their discretion and submit claims to the
New Jersey Spill Fund for reimbursement of costs associated with the
purchase of the bottled water.
Question: Will the municipal water main extension go all the way up Schoolhouse
Lane?
Response: Yes.
Question: The white line which outlines the impacted area
property lines instead of contour lines. Isn't
treatment?
seems to follow
this preferential
Response: We are trying to outline the area where we have found problems. We try
to be conservative. If one property has a problem, we include the next
one also.
o
Question: If you are trying to be conservative, wouldn't it be better to extend
the boundaries of the impacted area to include all of the homes up to
State Park Road?
o
Response: We intend to continue sampling and monitoring the entire area so that
if there is contamination discovered outside of the known impacted
area, we can extend the boundaries to include all affected residences.
We feel that our monitoring program will detect any contamination
moving off site in plenty of time to mitigate the problem.
Question: What guarantee can you give us that you will not have to come back
later and supply us with public water?
Response: We have the option to extend the water line if sampling reveals further
-------
-15-
Question: Ar~ there any problems with the water we will receive
Washington Township Municipal Utilities Authority (WTMUA)?
from
the
Response:
We do not know of any problems. The WTML'A
according to state standards and there have been
water_quality.
monitors its system
no problems with the
*Comment:
The conclusion reached in the r.I/FS that ground water does not flow
from the landfill in the direction of East Gate Road is questionable.
Given the nature of the fractured bedrock in the area, the plume could
change and indeed affect the residences along East Gate Road. For this
reason, the alternate water supply area should be extended to include
East Gate Road. .
Response:
The conclusions reached regarding the location and movement of ground
water contaminants on and around the landfill, are based primarily on
information gathered during the recent Remedial Investigation.
However, previous studies (primarily surface geophysical and chemical
sampling and analyses) were also used in evaluating the current site
conditions. As discussed in Chapter 4 of the RI, the evidence from
this work indicates that grouhd water and its associated contamination"
is not moving from the landfill to East Gate Road. Based on this.
eVidence, ground water and contaminants are expected to cc;mtinue to
flow in the directions currently defined (i.e., NE and SW) until
remedial measures are taken at the landfill. East Gate Road is located
to the north of the landfill, and is not in the downstream direction of
ground water flow.
Upon implementation of the proposed remedial measures (including
capping and shallow ground water pumping), a localized ground water
depression will be created below the landfill such that ground water
will flow toward the landfill. Thus, it is unlikely that contaminated
ground water would flow toward East Gate Road in the future, assuming
these remedial actions are taken.
Finally, the expanded on and off-site ground water monitoring program,
proposed as part of the site remediation, is being designed to function
not only as a means to evaluate the effectiveness. of the remedial
actions but also as an early warning system should these measures not
function as expected. Shallow and deep ground water monitoring wells,
including privat~ residential wells encircling the site, would be
sampled four times a year. If the results of these samplings indicate
further contaminant movement, or movement in unexpected directions,
additional remedial measures can be taken, including the extension of
municipal water supplies beyond the currently designated areas.
*Comment received by NJDEP in correspondence from Bill Golden, resident of East
-------
o
-16-
G.
o
*Comment:
With regard to the permanent alternative water source for affected
residences, the.. .use of water-saving devices should be required to
prevent overloading of septics.
Response: The local health departments, rather than the Feasibility Study (FS)
Report, should address the need to use water saving devices.
+
Comment: The NJDEP is urged to consider installation of a point-of-use water
filtration system for the affected residences. Mr. Tunkel elaborates
on advantages of the point-of-use system.
Response: The NJDEP's recommended alternative includes a permanent water system
for affected residences. This is a more comprehensive remedy than a
point-of-use water filtration system.
Affected Residences/Potential Risks
Question:
My property was one of those labelled "at risk".
telling us not to drink the water. Will we be sent
that we are no longer at ris~?
A letter was sent
letters telling us
Response: We have additional sampling to conduct but when we are sure of the
boundaries of the impacted area, we will send you a letter explaining
this delineation and any associated risks.
Question: Could we have a public statement?
Response: We would not have a problem making a public statement, given the proper
forum.
Question: Could this letter address present and future risks at the site?
Response: We would say that the homes are presently not at risk and that we have
a monitoring program to detect any future risk. We could not say that
there is absolutely no future risk.
Question: Have the wells on East Gate Road and Route 24 been tested?
Response: Yes.
Current data indicates that these wells are not contaminated.
o
Question: I live on the north end of State Park Road.
area are contaminated?
How many wells in this
o
Response: The area within the white boundary line is the impacted area. The
north end of State Park Road is far removed from the currently defined
impacted area.
Question: What will be done for the properties along Parker Road which have
become contaminated? The smell in this area is unbearable.
~Comment received by NJDEP in correspondence from David Peifer.
-------
-17-
b
Response: An alternative water supply will be installed for these homes. You can
contact the Spill Fund and submit a claim for reimbursement for any
damages you have experienced due to the landfill.
Question: Is there any danger to children playing along the northeastern corner
of the landfill and in the brook?
Response: Children should not play in the brook because they may ingest some of
the water. They certainly should not gr onto the landfill itself. but
to occasionally run through the surrounding area should not hurt them.
Question: Were any of the chemicals found known carcinogens?
Response: Yes; the concentrations vary.
Question: What symptoms (of effects from the chemicals) should people look for in
themselves and their children?
Response: The levels found here are too low to produce symptoms.
anyone symptom that you should look for.
There is not
Question: Is it safe to bathe in this water?
.
Response:
Dermal absorption is one of the things we consider in our risk
assessments. We do not have defined standards as we do for potability
but we will evaluate the data and get back to you. (This is currently
being done by NJDEP.)
Question: The recommended alternative has some components not in Alternative 3C.
What would the cost of the recommended alternative be?
Cost/Funding
Response: $49 million (present worth). $42 million (capital).
Comment: The $30 million figure to cap the landfill seems like an
figure.
excessive
Response: The $30 million figure includes not only the cap, but also gravel,
sand. clay, soil J topsoil with vegetation. grading. trenching.
terracing. leachate collection, etc.
c
Question: We initially heard a figure of $5-6 million to cap the landfill.
this correct?
Is
Response: The direct capital cost to cap the landfill is $21 million.
Question: Is there Superfund money available to do this work?
Response: Right now. no. However, the State has advanced to USEPA the money to
-------
o
-18-
-------
-19-
\>
Question: Did you explore the possibility that
affected by septic systems?
the potable wells have been
Question: Wai any radioactivity found in the ground water?
Response: We believe the Contamination in the wells is from the landfill.
Response: We found traces of radioactivity in deep borings and deep monitoring
wells and we suspect it is occurring naturally. Capping of the
landfill would a150 prevent movement of the radioactivity off site.
Question: Did you find unusual pH values in any of the wells?
Response: No, we did not find any unusually high or low pH readings in any of the
wells we sampled.
"'Comment: The presence of natural radioactivity in ground water at the site
renders the water useless as a potable source and therefore the issue
of other contamination of the ground water is moot.
Response:
. .
As stated in the Remedial Investigation report, both natural and
man-made radioactivity Sources are suspected at the site.
Nevertheless, none of the ground water sampled (on-site and in private
potable wells) had a concentration of radioactivity which exceeded
federal primary drinking water standards. Two leachate samples on-site
had concentrations of gross alpha radioactivity which exceeded the
public water supply screening concentration (i.e., that concentration
at which additional testing for radium 226 and other species. is
required); no potable well samples' exceeded this screening
concentration.
+
Comment: The feasibility
be explored and
be considered.
of using site-generated methane to provide power should
use of the standby unit in a cogeneration scheme should
Response:
The feasibility of using site-generated methane to provide power will
be explored in the final edition of the Feasibility Study. However, at
this time, it is not being included as part of the recommended remedial
action. A final decision as to such use of methane and other specific
operational details will be part of the final design of the remedial
action.
"'Paraphrased Comment received by NJDEP in correspondence from Theodore A.
Schwartz.
+
Paraphrased
comment
received by NJDEP
-------
o
-20-
;]
*Comment: Since the location of the pumping wells is adjacent to a mapped wetland
area, the effect of this dewatering on the...wetland ecosystem should
be addressed.
Response:
..
Additional discussion of the impact of the shallow pumping wells o~ the
wetland area will be provided as part of ~he final Feasibility Study
Report. The purposes of the pumping wells are to lower the ground
water table o~. ana near the landfill to below the waste pile and
maintain thiG lowered water level indefinitely. Therefore, the
wetlands bordering the site will gradually dry out and become more like
drier upland forest communities.
*Comment: Purchase of the private property adjacent to the site which contains
significant and highly impacted wetlands should be considered.
Response:
With remediation of the landfill site as proposed, the impacts to the
adjacent property will also be remediated. The proposed layout of site
facilities and remedial activities has attempted to limit, wherever
. .
possible, a11 such activities and structures to the Combe Fill South
property. Where this is not possible (i.e., the effluent outfall), the
purchase of easements and/or property will be necessary. The extent of
and mechanism for such purchases and/or easements will be defined as
part .of the final design.
+
Comment:
Mr. Schwartz takes exception to a discussion in the fact sheet
regarding the types of wastes accepted at the landfill. Under the
section "Site Description", the statement is made that household and
industrial wastes, chemical and waste oils, dead animals, sewage
sludge, and septic tank wastes were disposed of at the landfill. Mr.
Schwartz states that, to his knowledge, only household and commercial
wastes were received at the landfill, and the Department is confusing
the Combe Fill Corporation fill area with the previous fill operation
at the site. Additionally, Mr. Schwartz feels that statements made
regarding the unauthorized disposal of chemical and industrial waste in
open fields at the site are unfounded and "absolutely outrageous". Mr.
Schwartz would like to see the fact sheet amended to reflect his
concerns.
o
u
Response: The fact sheet reflects current knowledge of activities that took place
at the site.
o
~Paraphrased comment received by NJDEP in correspondence from David Peifer.
-------
-21-
I>
*Comment: Mr. Schwartz also comments that a representative of Lawler, Matusky and
Skelly Engineers (LM&S) indicated that the landfill prior to 1972 was
poorly managed.
Response: The statement made by LM&S was that the landfill was poorly managed and
operated. No time frame was attach~d to the statement and no inference
as to responsible parties was made.
+
Comment:
Concerns were expressed regarding construction access to the site,
line-of-site requirements, adverse impacts to homes on Lots 5 and 6,
width of the access road, - and development of a soil and sediment
control plan.
Response: The exact location, grade, etc. of the site access road and associated
structures are details which should be addressed during the final
design phase of the project.
+
Comment:
Development encroachment on Trout Brook downstream of Hacklebarney
State Park should be prevented by securing conservation easements.
Also, non-point source poll_tion control, watershed land protection,'
soil and sediment control, and reforestation should all be implemented
in the area.
Response: These are all important issues of concern that should be addressed by
local government. However, they are not pertinent to site remediation.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Ed Russo was asked by a member of the
audience for his personal feelings regarding DEP' s recommended alternative. He
expressed relief that money was going to be spent not on further research but on
actual remedial measures at the site. He said he believes that the plan meets
the' community's needs and is what they want, but would like to see it acted upon
quickly.
~Comment received by NJDEP in correspondence from Theodore A. Schwar~z.
-------
D
~.
Q
o
Q
CJ
-22-
IV.
Remaining Concerns
The most critical concern of the residents near the Combe Fill South
Landfill is the final determination of the area to be supplied with a
permanent alternative water supply. Residents are waiting to receive this
informatibn from NJDEP. For the residents who are not within the impacted
area, the - concern - will be to implement a comprehensive and preventive
monitoring program to ensure that the~r private wells are not being impacted
by the Landfill. This information will also be forthcoming from NJDEP in
the near future. Besides the delineation of the impacted area, the concern
is for the amount of time necessary to implement the alternative water
system. No matter how expeditiously the system is implemented, it will not
be soon enough for the residents near Combe Fill South.
------- |