United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-92/180
September 1992
SEPA Super-fund
Record of Decision:
-------
S0272 101
.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 1" REPORT NO. 1 ~ I. A8cIpIenta ~ No.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R02-92/180
.. '1118"''''''' I. AIport D88
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 09/30/92
Higgins Farm, NJ L
Second Remedial Action - Final
7. AuII8r(8) .. P8rtormkIg 0rg8nba1Ien AopL No.
.. ............ 0rg8InIIatI0n ..... ... AddN88 10. Proj8ctI1'88IIIWCIItI UnIt No.
11. ~C)..Gr8nqG)No.
(C) -
(0)
1~ 1pa188tng cq.dz1lll8n ..... ... AddI.a 11. Typ8 of R8p0rt. "-lad Co-.d
u.S. Environmental Protection Agency 800/000
401 ~Street" S.W. -
Washington, D.C. 20460 ,..
IlL ... n' ...._, - ''''; ,.,
PB93-963813 "
,11. Ab8hct (UIIIIt: lIDO --I
The 75-acre Higgins Farm site is a former cattle farm in Franklin Township, Somerset
County, New Jersey. Land use in the ~rea is predominantl~ a~ricultura1, with two
residences located onsite. The estimated 3,200 people who reside within 3 miles of
the site use a municipal water supply well for their drinking water supply. During
the 1960's, municipal sludge and penicillin waste were used as fertilizers on Higgins
Farm. The site also contains three holding tanks and drums containing material
removed from previous remedial investigations. In 1985, the city discovered and
reported elevated levels of chlorobenzene in a potable well near the site.
Additionally, the state investigated and discovered the presence of a drum burial dump
site approximately 40 yards from the contaminated well. In 1986, the owner excavated
50 containers, including drums; howeve r, during excavation activities, some of the
containers were punctured and their contents spilled onto the ground. Later in 1986,
the state sampled residential wells and discovered VOC contamination. The state also
collected soil samples and analyses indicated the presence of VOCs, pesticides,
metals, dioxins, and furans. In 1987, EPA responded to contamination in drinking
water wells by providing bottled water to affected residents as an interim ground
(See Attached Page)
17. Document An8Iy8I8 .. D88crIpton
Record of Decision - Higgins Farm, NJ
Second Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Medium: gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE, xylene)
b. IdentlIl8r8lOpen-End8d T-
c. COSA 11 FWdIGroup
18. Av".abll" StMement 18. Seaa1ty Cia.. (Thl. Report) 21. No. of Page.
None 88
20. SacwI" CI... (Thl. Page) n PrIce
Nnnp
See ANSl-Z38.18 In. Re . KJHM 2(2 (4.17)
See frucfione on ...-
(Formelty NTlS-35)
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-92/I80
Higgins Farm, Nj
Second Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
and copper. In 1985, the state and C&D Recycling arranged for the excavation and offsite
water remedy (OUI), and EPA assumed the lead in mitigating the site by constructing a
barn of contaminated material: draining, lining, and backfilling the excavation pit:
pumping treated and stored liquids into holding tanks: and fencing in the excavated pit
area. In 1989, carbon filters were installed to limit ingestion of. VOCs and mitigate the
potential for human exposure. In 1992, EPA performed a removal action and completed the
excavation of 94 drums and contaminated soil. This ROD addresses the final action-for
ground water to limit future migration of contaminated ground water to offsite areas, as
OU2. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the ground water are VOCs, including
benzene, PCE, TCE, and xylene.
The final remedial action for this site includes installing ground water extraction wells
around the perimeter of the site: treating the contaminated ground water onsite by
processes that are expected to include precipitation, flocculation, clarification,
filtration, air stripping, intermediate pH adjustment, ion exchange, and final pH
adjustment, however, the exact system will be developed during the RD phase: discharging
the treated ground water to onsite surface water: monitoring ground water, surface water,
and onsite and offsite wells .including downgradient residential wells: and performing
limited investigations to ensure all sources of contamination have been identified, with
removal and offsite disposal of contaminated materials that were previously remediated
and are currently stored onsite. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial
action ranges from $5,990,000 to $8,447,600, which includes an annual O&M cost of
$384,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Chemical-specific goals for ground water clean-up, which
are based on SDWA MCLS and state standards, include benzene 1 ug/l (state); ch10robenzene
4 ug/l (state): cis-1,2-dichloroethene 10 ug/l (state): vinyl chloride 2 ug/l (state):
bis (2-ethy1 hexyl) phthalate 6 ug/l (MCL); antimony 6 ug/l (MCL): chromium 100 ug/l:
-------
~LARATION STATEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION -
HIGGINS FARM
SITE NAME AND LOCATION'
Higgins Farm
Franklin Township, Somerset County, New Jersey
- -
, . . .
This decision document pre- _1nts the selected remedial action for the Higgins Fe "'
site, which was chosen in-ac;ordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Uability Act of 1980, as amended, and
to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan. This decision document explains the factual and legal basis for
selecting" the remedy for the second operable unit at this site. The information
supporting this remedial action decision is contained in the administrative record.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Higgins Farm site.
if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this Record of
Decision, may present an imminent and substantial threat to public health, welfare, or
the environment. -
The remedy described in this document represents the second operable unit -for the
Higgins Farm site. The first operable unit, which involved an interim ground water
remedy. provided for the installation of a water line to supply area residents -with an
alternate water supply. The remedial action selected in this Record of Decision
provides a permanent solution for contaminated ground water at the site. The soils
on the site do not appear to pose an unacceptable hea~h risk; therefore, no remedial
action for site soils is anticipated.
The major components of the selected remedy include the following:
Installation of ground water extraction wells around the perimeter of the
site and the source areas;
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
mE
Site name: Higgins Farm
Site location: Franklin Township, Somerset County, New Jersey
HRS score: 32.08
ROD
Date Signed:' -' September 30, 1992 .
Selected remedy: Ground water extraction and, treatment with discharge of treated g.round water to on-site
surface water. .
~. -. . '..
Capital cost: $2,544,800
o & M cost: $384,000 .
Present-worth cost (5-30 years): $5,990,000 - $8,447,600
J..EAQ
u.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Primary Contact: Joyce Hamey, (212) 264-6313
Secondary Contact: Janet Feldstein, (212) 264-0613
Main PRPs: Fund lead
WASTE
Waste type: Volatile organics, metals
Waste origin: Illegal dumping
Estimated waste quantity: Unknown
-------
2
Construction of an on-site treatment plant to treat the contaminated
ground water;
, Discharge of the treated ground water to an on-site surface water body;
Implementation of a sampling program invoMng monitoring wells and
downgradient residential wells to evaluate off-site migration and the '
effectiveness of the ground water extraction system;
; .. .
Umited investigations to confirm, that all sources of contamination have
been identified; and
Removal and proper disposal of contaminated materials which were
generated during previous site stabilization and remedial investigation
activities that are presently stored on the site. ' '
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with
Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
extent practicable given the unpredictable nature of the fractured bedrock and
stringent surface water discharge standards, and is cost effective. Requirements
which cannot be achieved by the remedy may be waived pursuant to Section 121 of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Uability Act, as
, amended. The selected remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
(or resource recovery) technologies to the maximum extent practicable and satisfies
the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity,
mobility, or volume as a principal element.
Because this remedy may result in hazardous substances remaining at the site above
health-based levels, a review will be conducted within five years after commencement
of the remedial action to ensure that it continues to provide adequate protection of
human health and the environment.
nstan ine Sidamon-Ensto
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA Region II
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCE;.MENT ACTlVmES . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2
. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . .. '. . . . . . . .. 5
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES. . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. . . . ,. . 13
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17
sELEcTEe REM EDY . . . . . . . . . .;. . ~. ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .. 25
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
...................................26
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX I.
APPENDIX II.
APPENDIX III.
APPENDIX IV.
FIGURES
TABLES
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
'.
"-1ST OF FIGURES
1. HIGGINS FARM LOCATION MAP
2. HIGGINS FARM SITE LAYOUT
3~ GENERAUZED GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
4. MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS
5. . TEST PIT lOCATIONS
6. SURFACE SOIL,- SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLES
7. ALTERNATIVE 2 CAPTURE ZONE SCENARIO
, ...
8. ALTERNATIVE 2 AND 3 TREATMENT SYSTEM LAYOUT .
-------
LIST OF !ABLES
1. RI OBJECTIVES AND ASSOCIATED TASKS
-
2. COMPARISON OF GROUND WATER RESULTS TO STATE
AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
3. COMPARISON OF TEST PIT RESULTS TO PROPOSED NJDEPE
STANDARDS AND EPA RISK-BASED STANDARDS
4. COMPARISON OF SURFACE SOIL RESULTS TO PROPOSED
NJDEPE STANDARDS AND EPA RISK-BASEQ STANDARDS
5. COMPARISON OF SOIL BORING RESULTS TO PROPOSED
NJDEPE STANDARDS
. .
6. COMPARISON OF SEDIMENT SAMPLE RESULTS TO PROPOSED
NJDEPE STANDARDS AND EPA RISK-BASED STANDARDS
7. CHEMICAlS OF POTENTIAl CONCERN
8. SUMMARY OF COMPLETE ExPOSURE PATHWAYS FOR
CURRENT lAND USE
9. SUMMARY OF COMPLETE ExPOSURE PATHWAYS FOR
. FUTURE lAND USE
10. SUMMARY OF CHRONIC NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD INDEX
ESTIMATES .
. 11. SUMMARY OF CANCER RISK ESTIMATES
12. ALTERNATIVE 1 COSTS
13. COST SENsmvrrv ANALYSIS.
14. ALTERNATIVE 2 COSTS
15. ALTERNATIVE 3 COSTS
16; CHEMICAL SPECIFIC ARARS AND TBCs FOR REMEDIATION
OF GROUND WATER
17. CHEMICAL SPECIFIC ARARS AND TBCS FOR DISCHARGE TO
-------
PECISIOtLSUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION -
HIGGINS FARM.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
. .
The Higgins Farm site (the site) is located in a rural residential area on Route 518 in ~
Franklin Township, Somerset County, New Jersey. The site, which is approximately 75
acres in site is owned by Mr. Clifford Higgins Sr., and is operated as a cattle farm
. (see Figure 1). It is primarily pasture land and is relatively flat and poorly drained.
There are two residences locate(j on the site, and other residences bordering the site
to the northeast and northwest. Trap Rock Industries' Kingston Quarry borders the
site to the south. Figure 2 shows the site boundaries and major features.
Two 3,000 gallon holding tanks containing contaminated wateri two empty 10,000
gallon holding tanks, and drums containing material generated during removal and
remedial investigation field activities are located in the northern portion of the site. A
barn housing excavated containers, drums and roll-off containers of contaminated
soils are also located in this area, which is referred to as the excavation pit area. A
. chain link fence surrounds the tanks, the barn and the area where the drums and
containers were excavated. The tanks and the barn were installed during emergency
response activities conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.(EPA). A
berm was constructed to prevent runoff from this area onto the remainder of the site.
A small fenced area, which is referred to as the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection and Energy (NJDEPE) fenced' area, where buried drums
were discovered during test pit excavation activities, is located in the southwest portion
. of the site. Demolition debris, including bricks, asphalt, metal scrap, and concrete, is
also found near the drum burial area. .
The topography of the site is generally flat, but slopes gently down to the southeast.
A minor drainage area and pond exist in the southeastern corner of the site.. Water
from the pond discharges through an unnamed tributary to Carters Brook,
approximately 2,000 feet to the east.
Approximately 545 residential and two municipal water supply wells are located within
three miles of the site. Wrthin this radius, approximately 3,200 people rely on ground
water for their drinking water source. The nearest downgradient public supply wells
are three wells operated by the Town of South Brunswick and are located'
approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the site. .
-------
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
. .
. The Higgins Farm site was used for the disposal of hazardous wastes, including
hazardous substances, under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Uability Act, as amended (CERCLA). Aerial photographs covering
tMe period from 1940 to 1983 show disturbed areas in the area of the NJDEPE fenced
area and east of the excava~on pit area (see Figure 2). During the 1960s, municipal
sludge and penicillin wastes were used as fertilizers on Higgins Farm. In December
1985, the Franklin Township Health Department reported to NJDEPE that elevated
levels of chlorobenzene existed in a potable well located at Route 518. Franklin .
Township, Somerset County. New Jersey. NJDEPE irivestigated and discovered the
presence of a drum burial dump at the site approximately forty yards from . the
contaminated well.
On January 2, 1986. NJDEPE investigated drum excavation activities Initiated at the
site by Mr. Higgins. The excavation was halted by NJDEPE as the activity had not
been approved. The NJDEPE issued a directive to Mr. Higgins on. February 24.1986
instructing him to implement a remedial action plan.
On April 7. 1986. O.H. Materials, a contractor employed by Mr. Higgins recommenced
excavation of buried drums with NJDEPE approval. Approximately fifty containers.
Including drums, were excavated. During excavation activities, some containers were
punctured and their contents spilled onto the ground as the drums were excavated.
Uquids were pumped from the excavation pit to a holding tank and visibly
contaminated soils were placed in roll-off containers. Due to payment disputes.
Mr. Higgins terminated O.H. Materials' activities at the site after several days.
On April 26, 1986, NJDEPE sampled ten residential wells in the vicinity of the site and
discovered that three wells were contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). Nine of the ten residential wells were resampled by NJDEPE in August 1986.
The analysis confirmed the presence of volatile organic contamination in the ground
water.
On May 8, 1986, NJDEPE personnel Inspected Higgins Farm and collected soil
samples from the site, including the excavation pit area. Analysis of these samples
indicated the presence of volatile organic compounds, pesticides. metals, dioxins and
furans in the soils at the site. On July 3, 1986, NJDEPE collected another sample from
the vicinity of the drum excavation pit. Analysis confirmed the presence of dioxins and
associated furans.
On August 27, 1986, NJDEPE personell collected 27 surface soil samples from the
site. Samples were collected from an adjacent residence, the excavation pit area, and
the two roll-off containers. Samples were analyzed for dioxins and furans. Analysis
confirmed the presence of dioxins and associated furans.
-------
. In November 1986, NJDEPE established a -Well impact area- near the Higgins Farm
site, restricting installation of new wells within the affected area. Thirty-one residences
were included within the well impact area at Higgins Farm. This well restriction has
since been removed by the NJDEPE.
In March 1987, EPA responded to the presence of contamination in drinking water
wells neighboring the site by providing bottled water to potentially impacted area
residents. At that time, EPA explained that it would provide bottled water as an interim
solution untH an alternate water supply could be arranged by NJDEPE. Thereafter, -
NJDEPE determined that the most appropriate method to supply potable water was to
install individual carbon units at the potentially impacted homes.. NJDEPE installed the
carbon filter units during the spring/summer of 1989, at which time bottled water
delivery was discontinued. The carbon filter units were intended to limit ingestion of
volatile organic compounds and mitigate the potential for human exposure via
. inhalation of volatile organic Compounds through household use.
In March 1987, NJDEPE formally requested that EPA assume the lead role in
mitigating the Higgins Farm site. On April 8, 1987, EPA initiated activities to stabilize
the site and to control the release of hazardous substances into the environment. The
following actions were undertaken.: .
a.
the construction of a barn to house contaminated material, including
but not limited to, overpacked drums and roll-off containers;
b.
the excavation pit was drained, lined and backfilled;
c.
the pumped liquids were treated and stored in holding tanks; and
d.
the excavation pit area was fenced to prevent access by unauthorized
persons.
In December 1989, NJDEPE advised EPA that it could not monitor and maintain the
carbon units beyond the spring of 1990. On February 2, 1990, EPA authorized.
$625,320 to monitor and maintain the carbon filter units for approximately two years.
The site was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities Ust (NPL) in June 1988.
EPA began investigations to identify potentially responsible parties (PRPs) for the
contamination at the site. In March 1989, the site was formally placed on the NPl,
thus making it eligible for federal funds to investigate the extent of contamination and
to clean up the site. In March 1989, EPA notified six PRPs of their potential liability.
EPA offered these PRPs the opportunity to conduct or finance the Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the site; however, the PRPs declined to
accept EPA's offer.
-------
As a result. EPA allocated funds for the studies to be conducted unf;ler EPA
supervision through its Contractors. EPA has since identified one additional PRP. who
also declined to conduct or fi.nance the RifFS.
On October. :1<7"1989. -£PA offered the PRPs the opportunity to install a water line
along Aoute 518 to service th~ residents impacted and potentially impacted by the
Higgins Farm site to provide a permanent solution to the water supply problem. in
February 1990, EPA informed the seven PRPs that the Agency had not received an
acceptable offer to install the public water supply. ..
On March 20. 1990. EPA issued an Administrative Order to Mr. & Mrs. Clifford Higgins
Sr. to install the water line:' Mr. & Mrs. Higgins have failed to COmply with the order.
In June 1990, EPA released the Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) report and EPA's
Proposed Plan for the construction of a water line extension to provide the potentially
affected residents with an alternate water supply. A public comment period was
provided. beginning on June 28 and ending on Ju/y.3O. 1990. '
On September 24. 1990. EPA issued a first Record of Decision (ROD) which selected
an interim remedy to connect the potentially affected residents to an existing water
supply. The design of the water line has been completed and all necessary approvals
from the Township of South Brunswick to connect to its water supply have been
obtained. Construction of the water line is scheduled to.begin in the near future. .
Between March 1990 and July 1992. EPA conducted an RifFS to define the nature
and extent of contamination at the site.
In August 1992. EPA's removal program completed the excavation of 94 drums and
contaminated soils which were discovered during test pit excavation activities in the
NJDEPE fenced area. Arrangements are currently being made for the proper disposal
of these drums and contaminated soils.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
A Community Aelations Plan (CAP) for the Higgins Farm site was finalized in March
1990. The CAP lists contacts and interested parties throughout government and the
local community. It also establishes communication pathways to ensure timely
dissemination of pertinent information. ,
The RifFS reports and the Proposed Plan for the second operable unit ground-water
remedy were released to the public for comment on July 15, '1992. These documents
were made available to the public in the administrative record file at Information
Repositories at the Mary Jacobs Memorial Ubrary. the Franklin Township Ubrary and
at EPA's Region" Office in New York City. The notice of availability for these
-------
documents was published in The Home News on July, 15, 1992. A public comment
period was held from July 15 to September 18, 1992, due to a request to extend the
comment period. In addition, a public meeting was held on August 3, 1992, to present
the Proposed Plan for the site. At this meeting, representatives from EPA answered
questions regarding remedial alternatives under consideration and problems at the
site. All comments which were received by EPA prior to the end of the public'
comment period, including those expressed verbally at the public meeting, are
addressed in the Responsiveness Summary which is attached as Appendix I to this
Record of Decision. . .
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION WITHIN SITE STRATEGY
This is' the second of two operable units for the site. The first operable unit provided
potentially affected residents located on Route 518 with an alternate water supply to
prevent ingestion of contaminated ground water. The primary objectives of the
second operable unit, as authorized by this ROD, are to capture and treat the bulk of
ground-water contamination found on the site and limit future migration of contami-
nated ground water to off-site areas. '
Many resid~nts in the vicinity of the site depend, on ground water as a potable water
source. Although the first operable unit provi~ed some area residents with an
alternate water supply, there remains the potential for contaminated ground water to
migrate from the site to other residenti,1 wells. As determined in the risk assessment,
exposure to the contaminated ground water could pose a threat to residents who
utilize ground water as their potable water supply. Therefore, this action is necessary
to treat the contaminated ground water at the site, and restrict the off-site migration of
contaminants. '
In addition, as described below, the risk assessment concluded that exposure to site
soils does not pose a significant risk, with'the exception of the soils located in the
NJDEPE fenced area which are being addressed as part of the removal action
described above. No further action is considered necessary for soils although, as
discussed below under Description of Alternatives, confirmatory sampling will be
performed to ensure that all contaminant sources have been identified. Therefore, this
second operable unit remedy focuses solely on ground-water remediation.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
EPA contracted Malcolm Pirnie and CH2M Hill to conduct a Remedial Investigation in
late Summer 1989. The purpose of the RI was to accomplish the following:
identify the nature and extent of contaminant source areas;
define contamination of ground water, soils, surface water and sediment;
-------
..
characterize site hydrogeology; and
determine the' risk to human health and the t9nvironment posed by the
site. . 0
. .
The RI tasks conducted to accomplish each of these objectives are listed in Table 1.
RI field work was conducted in two phases: from March 1990 through January 1992,
and from February 1992 through March 1992. Ground-water, surface and subsurface
soil, surface-water, sediments and suspected source area (through test pit excavatic,.l)
samples were collected and analyzed during Phase I of the RI. Phase II of the RI,
o which included the excavation of additional test pits and sampling, was conducted to
investigate other potential sources of contamination. In addition, hydrogeologic
studies were conducted using information obtained during the RI. The results of the
RI are summarized as follows.
Site Hydroloeoiogy
The geology of the site is characterized as unconsolidated material underlairi by
fractured bedrock. Figure 3 shows a generalized geologic cross' section of the site.
Hydrogeologic testing of monitoring wells installed in both the overburden and
bedrock zones were used to determine site hydrogeology, hydraulic conductivity,
ground-water flow directions and velocity, and the vertical gradient between the two
water-bearing zones. Results of the hydrogeologic studies indicate that ground water
flows through poorly distributed fractures in the bedrock beneath the site, resulting in
heterogeneous aquifer conditions. Aquifer anisotropy, which causes ground water to
flow preferentially through these fractures, along with the heterogenous cOnditions,
result in complex ground-water flow patterns which make it extremely difficult to
as('~rtain the pattern of local ground-water flow. Detailed results of the hydrogeologic
stL,;~oes can be found in the Remedial Investigation report. 0
Ground-Water Investigation
Ground-water samples were collected from seven shallow and eight deep on-site
monitoring wells. In addition, five residential wells in the vicinity of the site were
sampled (see Figure 4). As shown in Table 2, analytical results indicate that numerous
contaminants, including volatile organic compounds and metals, are present above
federal and state Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs); VOCs were detected in 21 of
23 ground-water samples. Tetrachloroethene was the most frequently detected
compound, at concentrations ranging from 0.17 to 270 parts per billion (Ppb). The
compound detected at the highest concentration was benzene at 1,200 ppb. Other
VOCs which were detected above federal and state MCLs include: dichloroethane
(320 ppb); trichloroethane (1,100 ppb); and vinyl chloride (86 ppb). No semi-volatile
organic compounds (semi-VQCs) were detected above federal or state MCLs. The
-------
most frequently detected semi-VOC was dichlorobenzene, at concentrations ranging
from 20 to 48 ppb. Inorganic compounds appeared in all samples. The metal
detected at the highest concentration was iron at 433,000 ppb. The following metals
. were detected above federal and state MCLs: beryllium (25.7 ppb); copper (8750
ppb); iron (433,000 ppb); a,:,d lead (81.4 ppb).
Source Area Investioation
. Test pit excavations were conducted to identify sources of contamination. Thirteen
test pits were excavated during Phase I of the RI (see Figure 5). The test pit locations -
were chosen based on the evaluation of the geophysical and soil gas surveys. A
source of contamination was uncovered in the area which NJDEPE formerly
designated as a suspected drum burial area. Buried 55-gallon drums, and other
containers and refuse were uncovered during excavation. Table 3 summarizes the
. results of soil samples collected from test pits. The following contaminants were
among those detected in soils in the NJDEPE fenced area: trichloroethane (4,400
ppb); tetrachlorethene (47,000 ppb); pentachlorophenol (2,100iOOO ppb); arsenic
(1,310,000 ppb); and dioxins (222 ppb). This source area is being addressed
separately by EPA's removal program. The removal of drums and contaminated soil is
expected to be completed in the Fall of 1992.
Six additional test pits were excavated and sampled during Phase II of the RI (see
Figure 5). The follow-up test pit program was conducted in March 1992. These test
pits were excavated to investigate potential sources of contamination as well as to
delineate the extent of contamination in areas where buried drums or contaminated
shallow monitoring wells are located. No drums or any other contaminant source
material were found during the Phase II test pit excavation. .
Surface and Subsurface Soil Investigation
Surface soil samples were cotlected at 59 locations,. including 42 on site and 17 off site
(see Figure 6). Sampling of on-site surface soils focused on suspect source areas.
The majority of the off-site samples were collecte.d from residential properties adjacent
to the site. Results showed that VOCs and semi-VOCs, in both on- and off-site
samples, were detected infrequently and at low concentrations. In addition, two pesti-
cides were detected in the on-site samples, but have been determined to most likely
, have originated from insecticides applied at the site. The inorganics detected on and
off the site include arsenic (12,400 ppb) and beryllium (2,000 ppb). Table 4
summarizes the analytical results of surface soils samples collected at the site.
Subsurface soil sampling included the installation of shallow borings, and collection of
samples during installation of monitoring wells. VOCs were detected in 11. of the 13
borings. The VOC detected at the highest concentration was tetrachloroethene at
1,100 ppb, however, it was detected at only one location. Semi-VOCs and metals
7
-------
were detected at low concentrations. Table 5 summarizes the analytical results of
subsurface soil samples collected at the site. . '
As no promulgated federal or state standards exist for surface and subsurface soils,
detected concentrations in test pits and soils were evaluated in a site-specific risk
assessment. As discussed below in the Summary of Site Risk section, the levels of
contamination present in soils do not pose a significant risk to human health or the
environment, with the exception of the contaminated soil in the NJDEPE fenced area
which is being addressed by EPA's'removal program. .
Three surface-water samples were collected from the intermittent on-site pond (see
Figure 6). The only VOC detected above the Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
(FAWQC) fot the protection' of aquatic life was carbon tetrachloride (1.4 ppb). No
semi-VOC's were detected above the FAWaC. The inorganics results indicated that
the following metals were detected above the FAwac: copper (6A ppb); iron (4,950
ppb); lead (12 ppb); and zinc (292 ppb).
Seven sediment samples were collected from the pond and three drainage channels at
the site~ The following semi-VOCs were among those detected: benzo(a)pyrene (500
ppb);.benzo(b)fluoranthene (830 ppb); 'and chrysene (750 ppb). These compounds,
however, were detected infrequently. Inorganics detected include arsenic (5,700 ppb)'
and beryllium (2,000 ppb). Table 6 summarizes the analytical results of sediment
samples collected at the site. ,
SUMMARY OF SITE RISK
EP..' ::onducted a baseline Risk Assessment to evaluate the potential risks to human
hec..:; and the environment associated with the Higgins Farm site in its current state.
The Risk Assessment focused on contaminants in the ground water, soils and
sediments. The selection of contaminants of concern (COC) is based on a number of
parameters, inclL,Jding the frequency of detection and concentration in each
environmental medium, environmental fate and transport characteristics, toxicitY, and
the likelihodd of exposure. The summary of COC in sampled matrices is listed in
Table 7. .
Human Health Risk Assessment
EPA's Risk Assessment identified several potential exposure pathways by which the
public may be exposed to contaminant releases at the site under current and Mure
land-use conditions. Ground-water, soils and sediment exposures were assessed for
a potential present land-use scenario and sediment exposure was assessed for
potential Mure land-use conditions. The baseline risk assessment evaluated the
-------
health effects which' 'Could result from exposure to contamination as a result of six
exposure pathways: 1) ingestion of chemicals in soil; 2) dermal contact with chemicals
in soil; 3) dermal contact with chemic.als in ground water; 4) ingestion of chemicals in
ground water; 5) Inhalation of chemicals in ground water volatilized to air; and 6)
dermal contact with contaminants in sediment. For the purposes of this human health
evaluation, potentially exposed populations include residents IMng on or adjacent tp
the site, farm workers, and site trespassers. These exposure pathways were
evaluated separately for adult and child residents. Children are assumed to be under
seven years old. All of the exposure pathways identified for the current land use can .
be expected to continue into the future. . In addition, an on-site resident's exposure to
sediments was evaluated for the future-use scenario. The exposure pathways
considered under current and future-use scenarios are listed in Tables 8 and 9,
respectively. The reasonable maximum exposure to COC was evaluated in all cases.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic (cancer causing) and
non-carcinogenic effects due to exposure to COC are considered separately. It was
assumed that the toxic effects of the site-related chemicals would be additive. Thus
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk associated exposures to indMdual compounds
of concern were summed to indicate the potential risks associated with mixtures of
potential carcinogens and non-carcinogens, respectively.
Non-carcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index (HI) approach, based on
8 comparison of expected contaminant intakes and safe levels of intake (Reference
Doses). Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the
potential for adverse health effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units of milligrams
per kilogram per day (mg/kg-day), are estimates of daily exposure levels for humans
which are thought to be safe over a lifetime Qncluding sensitive individuals). fstimated
intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g., the amount of a chemical
ingested from contaminated drinking water) are compared with the RfD to derive the
hazard quotient for the contaminant in the particular medium. The !1azard index is
obtained by adding the hazard quotients for all compounds across all media that
impact a particular receptor population.
A hazard index greater than 1.0 indicates that the potential exists for non-carcinogenic
health effects to occur as a result of site-related exposures. The HI provides a useful
reference point for gauging the potential significance 'of multiple contaminant
exposures within a single medium or across media. A summary of the non-
carcinogenic risks associated with the chemicals of concern across the various
exposure pathways is found in Table 10.
It can be seen from Table 10, that the HI for non-carcinogenic effects from the
ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation of ground water is 6.50 for adult residents and
10.27 for child residents. Therefore, non-carcinogenic effects may occur from the
exposure routes evaluated in the Risk Assessment. The non-carcinogenic risk'
-------
associated with exposure to contaminated ground water is attributable to several,
compounds including 1,1,2-triC?hloroethane and chlorobenzene.
~
" .
As presented in Table 10, the HI for non-carcinogenic effects from ingestion and
dermal contact with contaminants in soil is less than 1.0, indicating that the risk posed
by the soils is below EPA's acceptable risk range.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using cancer slope factors (SFs)
developed by EPA for the contaminants of concern. Cancer slope factors have been
developed by EPA's Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor for
estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially
carcinogenic chemicals. SFs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-dayr', are
multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to generate
an upper-bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure
to the compound at that intake level. . The term .upper bound. reflects the conservative
estimate of the risks calculated from the SF. Use of this approach makes the
underestimation of the risk highly unlikely.
For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper bound individual
. lifetime cancer risks of between 10'" to 10" to be acceptable. This level indicates that
an individual may have one in ten thousand to one in a million chance of developing
cancer as a result of site-related exposure over a 70-year period under specific
exposure conditions at the site. Under current land-use conditions, the risk
characterization showed that cancer risks associated with each of the ground-water
pathways Qngestion, inhalation and dermal contact) exceed Superfund acceptable risk
levels for both adults and children. For example, the estimated cancer risk associated
with ingestion of ground water is 2 x 10-3 (two in a thousand) for residential adults and
1 x 10-3 for residential children. The total cancer risk posed by contaminated ground
water from all pathways considered is 3 x 10-3 for reside~tial adults and 2 x 10-3 for
residential children. The cancer risk analysis indicates that 1,1,2-trichloroethane,
benzene, vinyl chloride and 1,2-dichloroethane are the main contributors to the
~stimated cancer risk (see Table 11).
As presented in Table 11, the cancer risks associated with the ingestion and dermal
contact with contaminants in soil and sediments are below or within EPA's acceptable
risk range, as described above.
The calculations were based on the concentrations of contaminants detected in on-site
monitoring wells and residential wells. For many monitoring well locations, ground
water from both shallow and deep monitoring wells was sampled and analyzed.
Where data was available from both depths, the higher concentration was used to
estimate exposure. For purposes of the Risk Assessment, the installation of the
waterline, which will provide 30 residents located along route 518 with a safe potable
water supply, was not taken into account as the waterline does not protect residents
-------
located downgradient 'from the site who depend on ground water as their p~ble
water source.
J:coloQical Risk Assessment
,
EPA also performed an Ecological risk assessment for the Higgins 'Farm site. The
following were determined to be chemicals of concern in the environmental risk
assessment: total polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); dioxins; and lead. The risk
assessment qualitatively evaluated the exposure pathways through which these
chemicals could migrate, potentially allowing for receptors to be at risk. For the variety
of aquatic and terrestrial species, the most probable routes of exposure to the
. chemicals of concern were identified as ingestion or direct contact with surface water,
sediments or soil containing these compounds. .
Due to the intermittent nature of the on-site surface water, the long range impact from
surface-water exposure to species that utilize the pond for habitat (e.g., amphibians),
from surface-water exposure is deemed to be low. When the surface water is absent, '
however, these organisms would be exposed to the sediment and soil borne
contamination and thus be potentially at risk to these media. Because of the' small
area of pond sediments, in conjunction with the low frequency of detection of the
compounds, the risks due to exposure and ingestion of ttiese media is also low.
The risk to the terrestrial wildlife (e.g., small mammals) was also found to be low for
the following reasons. The PAHs were detected in residential areas which are unlikely
to be used by wildlife. In addition, a review of the current literature did not indicate
that the dioxins and lead detected in soils and sediments would pose any significant
risks to these populations.
The site is operated as an active farm for cattle breeding. The cattle are bred and
raised at the site and are subsequently sold for human consumption. In August 1987.
NJDEPE collected seven milk and two beef tissue samples from the cattle. Dioxins
and furans were not detected in the milk samples. As determined by the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), levels of dioxins detected in beef tissue samples were
lower than those shown in routine market surveys and are not indicative of a ,problem.
In addition, fencing restricts the cattle from the source areas, i.e., the excavation pit
and NJDEPE fenced areas. Therefore, it has been determined that the cattle are not
at risk. '
As discussed below, the selected remedy will include discharge of treated ground
water to on-site surface water. Such a discharge could potentially affect the water,
quality and increase the potential exposure of the aquatic community to contaminants,
causing adverse impacts to the aquatic community. To ensure their continued
protection, the selected remedy will include regular monitoring of the surface water.
Field visits to the site have indicated that the wooded and wetland portion of the site
-------
I.
.
provide habitat for a variety of species. .No signs of stressed conditions were
observed at the site. No records exist showing"the presence of rare plants, animals or
natural communities on the Higgins. Farm site. .
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this evaluation, as In all such
assessments, are subject to a wide variety of uncertainties. In general, the main
sources of uncertainties include: . .
environmental ~hemistry sampling and analysis;
environmental parameter measurement;
fate and transport measurement;
exposure parameter estimation; and
toxicological data.
Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the potentially uneven
distribution of chemicals in the media sampled. Consequently, there is significant
uncertainty as to the actual levels present. Environmental chemistry analysis error can
stem from several sources including the errors inherent in the analytical methods and
characteristics of the matrix being sampled.
Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related tQ estimates of how often an
individual would actually come in contact with the chemicals of concern, the period of
time over which such exposure would occur, and in the models used to estimate the
concentrations of the chemicals of concern at the point of exposure.
Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both from animals to humans
and from high to low doses of exposure, as well as from the difficultJes in assessing
the toxicity of a mixture of chemicals. These uncertainties are addressed by making
conservative assumptions concerning risk and exposure parameters throughout the
assessment. As a result, the Risk Assessment provides upper bound estimates of the
risks to populations near the site, and is hig~ly unlikely to underestimate actual risks
related to the site.
More specific information concerning public health risks, including a quantitative
evaluation of the degree Of risk associated with various exposure pathways, is
presented in the Risk Assessment report.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed
-------
by Implementing the response action selected in this ROD. may present an ir:nminent
and substantial endangerment to public health. welfare or the environment
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives are specific goals to protect human health and the
environment; they specify the contaminant(s) of concern. the exposure route(s). recep.
tor(s). and acceptable contaminant level(s) for each exposure route. These objectives
are based on available information and standards such as applicable. or relevant'and -
, appropriate requirements (ARARs) and risk-based levels established in the risk
assessment. .
The following remedial action objectives were established for the second operable unit
of the Higgin~ Farm site: '
. To capture and treat the contaminated ground water in an attempt to restore
the aquifer to Federal and State drinking water standards;
To control or limit the Mure off-site migration of the contaminated ground
water; and .
To minimize the potential for direct exposure of the populace to the
contaminated ground water.
The ground water flows through fractures in the bedrock such that contaminants may
flow more quickly in one direction than in another. Defining the precise location of
fractures conveying contaminants which have already migrated from the site and
removing all contaminants from bedrock fractures would not be feasible. Therefore,
the ground-water remediation goal is to capture and treat the bulk of the
contamination on site and limit Mure off-site contamination to the extent practicable
given the complicated nature of site geology. .
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA requires that each selected site remedy be protective of human health and
the environment, be cost-effective. comply with other statutory laws. and utilize
permanent solutions. alternative treatment technologies and resource recovery
alternatives to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the statute includes a
preference for the use of treatment as a, principal element for the reduction of toxicity,
mobility, or volume of the hazardous substances.
This Record of Decision evaluates in detail, three remedial alternatives for addressing
the contamination associated with the Higgins Farm site. The time to implement
reflects only the time required to construct or implement the remedy and does not
13
-------
include the time required to design the 'remedy, negotiate with the potentially ,
responsible parties, or procure. contracts for design and construction. Capital costs,
operation and maintenance (0 & M) costs, and pre3ent worth values are provided for
the three alternatives.
These alternatives are:
Alternative 1: No Further Action
Estimated Capital Cost: $0
Estimated Annual 0 & M Cost: $71,500
Estimated Total Present Worth Value (5-30 years): $309,500 - $1,099,100
Estimated Implementation Period: None .
CERCLA requires that the -no-action- alternative be evaluated at every site to establish
a baseline for comparison to other alternatives. Under this alternative, EPA would take
no further action at the site to prevent exposure to the ground-water contamination,
thus the contamination would continue to migrate from the site and could impaCt
downgradient wells in the future. Using existing monitoring wells to the extent
possible, a long-term ground-water monitoring program would be implemented to
monitor contaminant concentrations remaining at the site and migrating downgradient.
For cost estimation purposes, it was ass~medthat sampling would occur on a semi-
annual basis.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining at the site, CERCLA
requires that the site be reviewed every five years. If justified by the review, remedial
actions may be implemented to remove or treat the contaminated ground water.
The above cost estimate includes the cost to perform this review. Details of the costs
associated with Alternative 1 are shown in Table 12.
Alternative 2: Source Area Ground-Water Extraction and Treatment
Estimated Capital Cost: $1,353,299
Estimated Annual 0 & M Cost: $262,100
Estimated Total Present Worth Value (5-30 years): $2,487,900 - $5,382,300
Estimated Implementation Period: 1 year .
The ground-water capture zone of this alternative would attempt to remediate only the
contaminated ground water in the vicinity of the two source areas; the excavation pit
area and the NJDEPE fenced area. This alternative includes the installation of
approximately six bedrock ground-water extraction wells around the source areas,
treatment of the contaminated ground water and discharge of the treated effluent to
the on-site surface water. Figure 7 provides a simulation of the anticipated source
area capture zone for this alternative. For cost estimation purposes, the treatment
-------
Details of the costs associated with Alternative 2 are shown in Table 14.
Alternative 3: Site-Wide Ground-Water Extraction and Treatment
Estimated Capital Cost: $2,544,800 .
Estimated Annual 0 & M Cost: $384,000
Estimated Total Present Worth Value (5-30 years): $5,990,000 - $8,447,600
Estimated Implementation Period: 1.2 years
In order ,to address site-wide ground-water Contamination, this alternative includes a
more encompassing, site-wide ground-water extraction system. This alternative is
similar to Alternative 2 except that it includes the installation of approximately sixteen
bedrock ground-water extraction wells around the perimeter of the site as well as
around the two source areas. Figure 9 provides a simulation of the anticipated site-
wide capture zone for this alternative. For cost purposes, the treatment system was
assumed to include metals precipitation, flocculation, clarification, and filtration
followed by aeration (air stripping), intermediate pH adjustment, ion exchange, and
final pH adjustment. The actual number and placement of extraction wells and the
exact nature of the treatment system would be determined during design of the
system. .
As in Alternative 2, a ground-water and surface-water monitoring program would be
implemented to evaluate the performance of the remedial action. This program would
include monitoring of on- and off-site monitoring wells (which may include the
installation of additional off-site monitoring wells), and residential wells. Additional well
surveys to identify existing potable wells in the. vicinity of the site would also be
. included under this alternative.
As in Alternative 2, because the exact length of time the treatment system would be
operated is unknown, it would be monitored regularly for effectiveness in containing
and treating the contaminated ground water. Therefore, the cost of this alternative
could range from $5,990,000 to $8,447,600 depending on the length of time the
system is operated as shown in Table 13.
In addition, this alternative will include the previously described limited investigations to
confirm that all sources have been identified and the removal of contaminated material
presently stored at the site.' .
In order to increase the effectiveness of the extraction wells, artificial enhancement of
fractures around extraction wells may be considered during the design of . the remedial
action. .
. A summary of the ARARs associated with Alternative 3 is provided under the
Summary of the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives section.
-------
system was assumed to include metals precipitation. flocculation. clarification. anJj
filtration followed by aeration (air stripping). intermediate pH adjustment. ion exchange
and final pH adjustment (see Figure 8). The actual number and placement of
extraction wells and the exact nature of the treatment system would be determined
during design of the system.
Alternative 2 includes a ground-~ater and surface-water monitoring program to
evaluate the performance of the remedial. action. This program would include monitor-
ing of on- and off-site monitoring wells (which may include the installation of additional
off-site monitoring wells). and residential wells. Additional well surveys to identify
existing potable wells in the vicinity of the site would also be conducted under this
alternative. .
As the goal of this altemative is to restore the aquifer to drinking water standards. .
there is some uncertainty associated with the required time frame for achieving these
goals. Thus. the cost estimate is based on an estimated treatment period of 5 to 30
years. as shown in the cost sensitivity analysis in Table 13.. The cost of this alternative
could range from $2.487.900 to 5.382,300 depending on the length of time required to
remove contaminants. This ground-water treatment system would be monitored
. regularly for effectiveness in containing and treating the contaminated ground
water.
This alternative would also include limited investigations of the following areas to
confirm that all sources have been identified: the grain pile located in the feedstock
area; an abandoned hand-dug well; the excavation pit area; and a small area located
in the northwest portion of the site that could not previously be investigated due to the
presence of livestock. EPA does .not anticipate the discovery of additional sources of
contamination.
Contaminated material presently stored at. the site, including those materials generated
during site stabilization and remedial investigation activities, would be removed from
the site as part of this alternative. EPA suspects that some of these wastes may
contain dioxin, which would limit disposal options. Therefore. the waste may be stored
at the site until such time that proper disposal can be arranged. . ...
In addition. In order to Increase the effectiveness of the extraction wells, artificial
enhancement of fractures around extraction wells may be considered during the
design of the remedial action. This would be accomplished through controlled blasting
or use of high pressure water to enlarge existing fractures. or create new fractures
around individual wells.
A summary of the ARARs associated with Alternative 2 is provided in the Summary 01
the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives section. .
-------
7.
including the availability of materials and services needed.
Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs, and the
present worth costs.
The following .modifying. criteria are considered fully after the formal public comment
period on the Proposed Plan is complete:
8.
State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the RI/FS and the
Proposed Plan, the State supports, opposes, and/or has identified any
reservations with the preferred alternative.
9.
Community acceptance refers to the public's general response to the alterna-
tives described in the Proposed Plan and the RifFS reports. Factors of .
community acceptance to be discussed include support, reservation, and
opposition by the community.
A comparative analysis of the remedial alternatives based upon the evaluation criteria
noted above follows.
THRESHOLD CRITERIA
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
As the no-action alternative does not include ground-water treatment or migration
control, it provides no reduction in risk and is not considered to be protective of
human health and the environment.
Alternative 2, source-area ground-water extraction and treatment, affords protection of
human health and the environment through extraction and treatment of comaminants
in ground water. By controlling contaminant migration within the source area capture
zone, the extraction system aids in the prevention of exposure to contaminated ground
water. However, as this alternative focuses on the source areas only, contamination
would continue to migrate from other areas of the site. The monitoring of off-site
residential and monitoring wells would provide additional protection by determining if
contaminants are migrating from the site toward downgradient receptors. Ttie effluent
from the ground-water treatment system would be designed to meet the discharge
requirements shown in Table 17, which are considered to be protective of human
health and the environment.
Alternative 3, site-wide ground-water extraction and treatment, affords greater
protection of human health and the environment than Alternative 2 since the. capture
zone for Alternative 3 encompasses the entire site. Therefore, Alternative 3 would
allow less contaminated ground water to migrate from the site. In addition, as
-------
. 1.
Details of the costs associated with Alternative 3 are shown in Table 15.
SUMMARY OF THE COMI'ARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES. .
During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives, each alternative was assessed
utilizing nine evaluation criteria as set forth in the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) and Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9355.3-01. These Criteria. were developed to
address the requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA to ensure all important
considerations are factored into remedy selection decisions. .
The following -u,reshold- criteria are the most important; and must be satisfied by any
alternative in order to be eligible for selection:
Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether or
not a remedy provides adequate protection and describes how risks posed
through each exposure pathway (based on a reasonable maximum exposure.
scenario) are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering
controls, or institutional controls. .
2.
Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy would meet air of
the applicable, or relevant and appropriate requirements of federal and state .
environmental statutes and requirements or provide grounds for invoking a
waiver. .
The following -primary balancing- criteria are used to make comparisons and to
identify the major trade-ofts between alternatives:
.
3.
Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of a remedy to
maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment over time,
once cleanup goals have been met. It also addresses the magnitude and
effectiveness of the measures that may be required to manage the risk posed
by treatment residuals and/or untreated wastes.
4.
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment is the anticipated
performance of a remedial technology, with respect to these parameters, that a
remedy may employ.
5.
Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve
protection and any adverse impacts on human health and the environment that
may be posed during the construction and implementation periods until cleanup
goals are achieved.
6.
Implementability is the technical and administrative feasibility of 8 remedy,
-------
Alternative 3 includes more extraction wells, it is expected that a greater volume of
contaminated ground water will be extracted from the aquifer. However, as in
Alternative 2, due to the complex nature of the site. geology, some contamination may
remain in the fractured bedrock at the end of the remediation time period. The
monitoring of off-site residential and monitoring wells would provide additional
protection in Alternative 3 as well. The effluent from this treatment system would meet
discharge requirements considered to be protective of human health and the environ-
ment.
Compliance with Applicable Relevant and ApDrop~eQuirements
. .
The technologies and methods proposed for use under the ground-water remedial
alternatives would be designed and implemented to satisfy all corresponding ARARs,
as described below.
Chemical-Specific ARARs
,
Chemical-specific ARARs are health- or environmentaUy-based numerical values
limiting. the amount of a contaminant that may be discharged to, or allowed to remain
In environmental media.
GROUND WATER
It has been determined that the site is located within the boundaries of the 15 Basin
Sole Source Aquifer, a ground-water protect.ive designation authorized by the Safe
Drinking Water Act. Standards which are considered ARARs for the site include:
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Maximum Contaminant Levels, Federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Maximum Concentration Umits, and.
State of New Jersey standards [New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act A-280
Amendments and New Jersey Pollution Discharge. Elimination System regulations
(N.J.A.C. 7:14A-1.1 m 9Q.), N.J.A.C. 7:10-16 in 9Q. and 7:9-6 m ~.]. CERCLA
requires remedies to comply with promulgated state requirements which are more
stringent than federal requirements. Therefore, the most stringent standard is the
cleanup goal for ground water at the site. Table 16 lists the chemicals found in the
ground water at the site with their federal and state standards. The last column in the
table provides the cleanup requirement for each chemical.
Alternative 1 does not involve active remediation and is not expected to meet
chemical-specific ARARs in ground water. Natural flushing of ground water, in time,
may eventually. result in achievement of ARARs in ground water. The time frame is
unknown, but would. be expected to take many years.
Alternative 2 involves active remediation of ground water in the vicinity of the source
areas. However, due to the difficulties in extracting contaminated ground water from
19
-------
fractured bedrock, the time frame for achieving ARARs is difficult to estimate.
Furthermore. since this alternative only addresses the source areas, ARARs will not be
achieved outside the source ar-ea capture zone. Some decreases in contaminant
levels can be expected over time. Alternative 3 will include more extraction wells than
Alternative 2 and therefore is expected to remove and treat more contaminated ground
water. . Thus, Alternative 3 is more likely to achieve ARARs in the aquifer than
. Alternative 2. The time frame for Alternatives 2 and 3 to achieve compliance with
chemical-specific ARARs in the underlying bedrock aquifer is difficult to estimate.
Alternative 3 represents a more aggressive approach to attaining ARARs in the aquifer,
and greater decreases in contaminant levels can be expected with this alternative.
AIB
Air emissions from the treatment systems associated with Alternatives 2 and 3 would
be required to meet both Federal and State air quality standards and regulations
including the following: National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 50; and
New Jersey Air Pollution Control Regulations, N.J.A.C. 7:27 e1 am
SURFACE WATER.
Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, EPA developed Federal Ambient Water Quality
Criteria (FAWQC). EPA has determined that these criteria are relevant and appropriate
requirements. The surface discharge requirements selected for the Higgins Farm site
generally are the FAWQC for the protection of aquatic life. However, for those
compounds for which the laboratory minimum detection level (MDL) is greater than the
FAWQC O.e.. the concentration determined by the FAWQC cannot be detected),
compliance with the FAWQC will be shown by meeting the lowest MDL available
through the EPA contract laboratory program. In addition. for certain compounds, an
anti-degradation limitation may be applicable. This is to minimize degradation of
existing water quality O.e., the discharge limit should not be higher than the ambient
concentration in the surface water). .
The treatment system conceptually developed in the FS for Alternatives 2 and 3
represents the best available technology for the constituents present in site ground
water. The system includes metals precipitation, flocculation. clarification, and
filtration. followed by aeration (air stripping). intermediate and final pH adjustments. as
well as a polishing step for metals removal.
EPA determined that this treatment system would be the most appropriate for
achievement of the FAWQC. In addition. it is anticipated that this system will achieve
the anti-degradation limits. As shown in Table 17. the discharge from the treatment
system should meet the FAWQC and the antidegradation Iil'T1its. However, these
requirements are rather stringent and may be difficult to achieve with the selected
technology which. as stated above. represents the best available technology. If. upon
-------
operation of the treatment system, it is determined that the selected discharge
requirements cannot be achieved, these requirements may be waived based' on the
technical impracticability of achieving further contaminant reduction.
Action-Specific ARARs
Action-specific ARARs are either technology or activity based limitations which apply to
remedial actions.
Since Altemative 1 does not involve active remediation, it has no associated action-
specific ARARs. .
The act.ion-specific ARARs associated with both Altematives 2 and '3 include the
following: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 e1~, for discharge to surface water;
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 e1 ~, for operation of the
ground-water treatment system; National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR Part
SO, for air emissions from the ground-water treatment system; DOT Rules for .
Hazardous Materials Transportation for The Transportation of Hazardous Materials, 49
CFR Parts 107, 171.1-172.558; Hazardous and Non-hazardous Waste Regulations,
N.J.A.C., 7:26 e1 eg; Air Pollution Control Regulations, N.J.A.C. 7:27 It eg; Spill
Notification requirements, N.J.A.C. 7:1 (e); Notice of Release of Hazardous Substances
to Atmosphere, N.J.S.A. 26:2c-19; Occupational Safety and Health Administration
requirements, 29 U.S.C. 651 e1~; General Requirements for Permitting Wells,
N.J.A.C. 7:9-7; and Sealing of Wells Procedures, N.J.S.A.58:4A-S m ~
In addition, any sludge generated by the operation of the ground-water treatment plant
would have to be disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, including the Land Disposal Restrictions.
As treated ground water would be discharged to surface water, the requirements.
included in Table 17, as discussed above. would also be action-specific ARARs for the
ground-water treatment system included in both Altematives 2 and 3.
It is expected that both Altematives 2 and 3 would address and comply with all action-
specific ARARs listed above. .
Location-Specific ARARs
Location-specific ARARs restrict activities or limit concentrations of contaminants in
effluent because a site is in a special location such as a floodplain, wetland. or
historical area. . .
Since Altemative 1 does not inv~lve active remediation. it has no associated location-
specific ARARs.
-------
The location-specific ARARs associated with Alternatives 2 and 3 include the follo,wing:
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. 16 U.S.C. 66111 eg.; Clean Water Act; National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966. as amended. 16 U.S.C. 47011 eg.;- New Jersey
Flood Hazard Area Regulations. N.J.A.C. 7:13-1.1 m eg.; and New Jersey Freshwater
Wetlands Protection Act _R.ules.J~.J.A.C. 7:7A-1.1 It eg.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would comply with all the location-specific ARARs listed above.
For the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. as amended. a Stage 1A cultural
resource survey was conducted at the site. . The only portion of the site of historic
Interest is the nucleus of the Higgins Farmstead. Therefore. if the area of the
farmstead nucleus will be affected by remedial actions. a Stage 1 B-Ievel archeological
study will be performed in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966. as amended. to determine whether potentially $ignificant historic archeological
resources exist that can be associated with the early histOry of this property.
A wetlands delineation and assessment will be performed during remedial design to
determine whether any remedial actions will have an adverse Impact on wetlands at -
the site. Treatment system design and construction for both Alternatives 2 and 3
would have to address and avoid any potential adverse impacts on wetlands that are
identified.
PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA
LonQ-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 1 would not remove or control migration of contaminants in the ground.
water. Contaminants from the site would continue to migrate from the site which
would increase the volume of contaminated ground water. The no-action alternative is
not considered to be effective over the long term because contaminated ground water
remains at the. site and continues to migrate downgradient.
Alternative 2 is expected to be generally effective in providing cleanup of the aquifer in
the source-area capture zone. although some contamination may remain in fractures
at the end of the remediation time period. Due to the complex nature of the site
geology. it is difficult to determine how effective pumping of the wells adjacent to the
source areas will be in extracting contaminated ground water and controlling overall
contaminant migration to downgradient receptors and the associated long-term risks
. due to the nature of fractured bedrock. .
Alternative 3 is expected to be more effective than Alternative 2 in providing cleanup of
the aquifer, because it involves a more encompassing site-wide capture zone.
Although this alternative involves removal of a larger volume of contaminated ground
water (Le.. less is likely to remain in the fractured bedrock) and more effectively
prevents the off-site migration of contaminated ground water. it is possible that some
-------
\,
contamination may still remain in fractures at the end of the remediation time period.
Reduct~city. Mobility or Volume through Treatment
Alternative 1 would not involve any containment, removal, treatment, or disposal of
contaminated ground water. Therefore, this alternative would not result in any immedi-'
ate reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume. Contaminants would continue to migrate
to off-site areas as well as into deeper fractures of the bedrock resulting 'in an increase
in the volume of contaminated ground water., .
Alternative 2 is expected to directly reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume of
contaminants in ground water within the source-area capture zone through treatment.
As previously stated, due to the complex n~ture of fractured bedrock, some
contamination may remain in. the interconnecting fractures of the bedrock and may
~ntinue to migrate from the site. .'
Alternative 3 is expected to further reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume of
contaminants in ground water. Some contamination may still remain in the .
interconnecting fractures of the bedrock in this alternative as well, but to a lesser
extent. The Alternative 3 capture zone is more encompassing than that of Alternative
2. and, therefore, would provide a greater reduction of contamination through
extraction and treatment of greater volumes of contaminated ground water.
Alternative 1 presents no significant short-term risk to residents adjacent to the site as
their wells are connected to treatment units. There is no known contamination of
residential wells within a one-mile radius of the site. However, under this alternative,
ground water will continue to migrate from the site and present a risk to those
downgradient residents.
Alternatives 2 and 3 do not pose any significant short-term risks to the community
during construction and implementation of the remedy. Construction workers will
follow applicable health and safety requirements during implementation of the remedy.
The time required to implement Alternative 2 is estimated to be two years for design
and construction. Upon system startup, this alternative will immediately begin to
control migration of ground-water contaminants from the source-area capture lone.
The time required to implement Alternative 3 is approximately two months longer than
Alternative 2 due to the greater number of wells to be installed. Upon system startup,
this alternative will also immediately begin to control ground-water contaminants from
migrating from the more encompassing site-wide capture zone.
-------
Jmplementability
Umited effort would be required to monitor and m'aintain the elements of Alternative 1.
.There are several monitori':1~ wells at and near_the site that can be used for ground-
water monitoring. ' , ,--
Although Alternative 1 is the simplest to implement, the components of Altematives 2
and 3 can be designed and installed relatively easily. The componentS of the
treatment system are readily available and have proven effective in addressing similar
ground-water contamination. The effectiveness of the ground-water pumping will
depend on how well the extraction wells are located such that they intercept
productive fractures. In general, it may not be possible to pump all of the -
contaminated ground water from the fractured bedrock within the respective capture
zones. If appropriate, further remedial measures, such as installing additional wells,
can be easily implemented. ". .
~
There are no capital costs associated with Alternative 1. Annual operation and
maintenance costs for long-term ground-water monitoring are estimated to be $71,500,
for a present worth over five to thirty years of $309,500 - 1,099,100. Alternative 1 is
the least costly of the three alternatives. - . .
Capital costs for Alternative 2 are estimated to be $1,353,299. Annual operation and
maintenance is estimated to be $262,100. Since it is difficult to predict how long the
system would operate, the present worth costs are given in five-year Increments, from
5 to 30 years, resulting in a cost range of $2,487,900 - $5,382,300 for Alternative 2.
The cost for Alternative 3 is approximately 50 percent higher than Alternative 2.
Although this is the most costly alternative, it prQvides the greatest protection of
human health and the environment. Capital costs for Alternative 3 are estimated to be
$2.544.800. Annual operation and maintenance is estimated to be $384,000. The
present worth cost range for this alternative is $5.990,000 - 8,447,600.
MODIFYING CRITERIA
~
EP A has involved the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
in the RI/FS and remedy selection process. The NJDEPE was provided the
opportunity to comment on the draft RI/FS documents and the Proposed Plan, and
was present at the public meeting held on August 3, 1992 to inform the public of the
results of the RI/FS and the Proposed Plan. The NJDEPE has not yet indicated if it
concurs with the selected remedy.
-------
CommuniW Acceptance
. .
EPA solicited input from th'e community on the remedial alternatives proposed for the
ground-water contamination at the Higgins Farm site. In general. the community has
,expressed agreement with EPA's selected remedy. The attached re.sponsiveness
summary addresses all comments received during the public comment period.
SELECTED REMEDY
EPA has selected Alternative 3 as the remedy for the Higgins Farm site. This remedy
is comprised of the following ~mponents: .
Installation of ground-water extraction wells around the perimeter of the
site and around the source areas. For cost estimation purposes, sixteen
wells are proposed;
Treatment of the contaminated ground water by processes which are
expected to include metals precipitation. flocculation. clarification. and
filtratiort. followed by aeration(air stripping). intermediate pH adjustment.
. ion exchange. and final pH adjustment; , .
Discharge of treated ground water to the on-site surface water body;
Implementation of a program for sampling of on-site and off-site
monitoring wells and downgradient residential wells to evaluate the
potential for off-site migration and the effectiveness of the extraction
system;
Umited investigations to confirm that all sources of contamination have
been identified; . . .
Removal and proper disposal of contaminated materials generated during
previous site stabilization and remedial investigation activities which are
presently stored at the site.
. .
The remedial design will specify the appropriate number and location of wells. and
system parameters for the ground-water treatment system. Some modifications or
refinements may be made to the remedy during remedial design. construction and
operation.
The selection of this remedy is based upon the comparative analysis of the ground-
water alternatives discussed above. and provides the best balance of tradeoffs with
respect to the nine evaluation criteria. ARARs for the selected remedy are provided in
the discussion &1ajnment of~evant and Appropriate ReQuirements of
25
-------
Environmental Laws in the following section.
As pre~ously discussed, the goal of this remedial action is to capture and treat the
bulk of the ground-water contamination at the site and limit Mure off-site contami-
. nation to the extent practicable, as well as to restore the ground water to its beneficial
use, Which is, as stated above, a drinking water aquifer. Based on information
obtained during the RI, EPA believes that the selected remedy may be able to achieve
this goal. However,the ability to achieve cleanup standards Q.e.. Federal and State
MCLs) cannot be determined until the extraction and treatment system has been
implemented and its efficiency and effectiveness are monitored over time.
During operation of the remedial action. if it becomes apparent that contaminant levels
have ceased to decline and are remaining constant at levels higher than the
remediation goals, treatment system operations may be discontinued or adjusted and
the remedy reevaluated. If it is determined that the selected remedy is not effective in .
extracting or treating contaminated ground water at the site. contingency measures
may be taken. .
Those contingency measures may include discontinuing pumping at unproductive
extraction wells. installing additional extraction wells to facilitate or accelerate cleanup
of ground-water contamination, and alternating pumping wells to eliminate stagnation
points. These contingency measures will be protective of human -health and the
environment.
If it is determined that in spite of any contingency measures that may be taken, the
aquifer cannot be restored to its benlE"ficial use, ARARs .may be waived in accordance
with the statutory waiver provisions of CERCLA based on the technical impractibility of
achieving further contaminant reduction. . . .
The decision to invoke a contingency measure may be made during the five year
periodic review of the selected remedy. .
The estimated cost range for the selected remedy is $5,990,000., $8,447,600 over a
time period of five to thirty years. depending on how long the treatment system is
operated. .
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under its legal authorities, EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund sites is to select
remedial actions that are protective of human health and .the environment. In addition,
Section 121 of CERCLA also requires that when complete, the selected remedial
action for the site will comply with appUcable or relevant and appropriate environmental
-------
standards established under Federal and State environmental laws, unless a, waiver is
granted. The selected. remedy must also be cost-effective and utilize permanent
. solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to
the maximum extent practicable. The statute also contains a preference for remedies
that include treatment as a principal element. The following sections discuss how the
selected remedy for contaminated ground water at the Higgins Farm site meets these'
statutory requirements.
ProtectiQn..gf Human ~ the Environment
The selected ground-water remedy protects human health and the environment by
reducing levels of contaminants in the ground. water through extraction and treatment
as well as through containment of the plume. Of the three alternatives evaluated, the
selected alternative provides greater protection of human health and the environment
. as its capture zone encompasses the entire site and, therefore, is able to extract and
treat a greater volume of contaminated ground water over the remediation time period.
However, due to the complex nature of the site geology, some' contamination may still
remain in the fractured bedrock at the end of the remediation time period. Monitoring
of on- and off-site monitoring wells, as well as off-site residential wells would provide
additional protection to human health and the environment. The treatment system will
be designed such that the effluent will meet discharge requirements considered to be
protective of human health and the environment, to the extent practicable.
The selected remedy will be designed to meet all chemical-specific, action-specific,
and location-specific ARARs discussed under Summary of Comparative Analysis of
Alternatives, above. .
However, due to the complex nature of the fractured bedrock, the selected remedy
may not meet all chemical-specific ARARs for the remediation of ground water (see
Table 16). Similarly, the selected remedy is conceptually designed to achieve
compliance with ARARs for the discharge to surface water (see Table 17). These
limitations are rather stringent and may be difficult to achieve with the available
technology. The selected remedy, however, will comply with these ARARs to the
extent practicable. If the treatment system cannot comply with these limitations,
alternate limitations will be developed by EPA in conjunction with NJDEPE.
Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedy is cost-effective in mitigating risks posed. by contaminated
ground water. Although the selected remedy is the most costly of the three
alternatives evaluated, it provides the greatest effectiveness in attaining the threshold
criteria. The estimated cost for the selected ground-water remedy, over a five to thirty
-------
year period. is $5.990.000 - $8.447.600. depending the length of time the system is
operated.
The selected ground-water remedy represents the maximum extent to which
permanent solutions and treatment technologies can be utilized in a coSt-effective
manner for .the Higgins Farm site. The selected remedy for ground water provides the
best balance of tradeoffs with respect to the nine evaluation criteria. .
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy satisfies the statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element. The selected remedy .utilizes treatment to reduce levels of contamination in
ground water to achieve applicable surface-water discharge limits. to the extent
practicable.
Documentat~cant Changes
The Proposed Plan for the site was released to the public in July 1992. This Plan
identified Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative to remediate the ground-water
contamination at the Higgins Farm site. Upon review of all comments submitted. EPA
determined that no significant changes to the selected remedy. as it was presented in
the.Proposed Plan. were necessary.
-------
APPENDIX I
-------
Nr~' 0
J('-~[' ~ :
. .,. I
\. I
" .
.
:' ,~I'....;,.! ~:~&..~..
MONMOUTH JUNCTION QUADRAN OLE
NEW JERSEY
1.5 MJNUTE SERIES (TOPOORAPHJC)
SCALE 1.24000
, . '"
~.~'.- -~-:-~....~.~-..; - ~-::",...:-r ~ ;,.~_.~ ..'Y'.&i-.~~~ -.
181&.(
:. , . ~. : ~. ~ "'."
r . ~~ '.:1::.='. -: _F:.or---~
~
to:".'O
tC!CIO
1aDO 8U1
"'III 'I,C -NO ,., lIIaCII[TIC NOIT..
.'L....TIOIc aT "81111 or IMUT
.. ~
~:"'! ..~.,.~-
, KlLOIItTfI
FIGURE 1
FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP
SOMERSET COUNTY
LOCATION MAP
HIGGINS FARM
---.
CONTOUR INT£RVAL 20 FEET
"A'ION~ GtOOtTIC VEIIITICAL DATUM Of liD
-. -. '0 _... .,,--
-
-------
-
.
. .
I
I
I
. ROUTE~_---~'''''-
A~9 A~O -~-~-~~-=--;-'-.T-.--:-~\
) L- ---- - - , .'" lEGEND
-- --=---- .", II . --- SIll! 8QU118DA-
---- , " , I II on.
: -:'1 ". ,I II-J . I
:: '-1 , ~ 11-.1,1,.' . .IoiA] '\J )' ~ - . . FEMCE ~
I - en , L(!:;l Ltd , . . .. ~'. ~..,.& .
II .- \; - DlSt- --snc WAil!
( I: ... .. ~'ti 0 --~ :::~._.
. \ )I., I ':i:'':~ Vd \ ----
\ I A"--
R" l: . \ v'.. .
QI ....:--=--=-----wdt-!!: , 1.. "
. ~-_..-.o :.J / " ,
,(-2' : , , "'-
~~?:, I
I . I"
~ - ,
: ,
: I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
~.
=,
-"
_e.
. .1
I
'I
: i
\1'
q
---
~
Ow-- '\
~...,
. .-
,""'" .- ...~
\ , \,
. ._._-_.~------- - .~
. r -, ~
\.
...
/
....
..... "
. ...,..............
~......- ...l1li
-"".Aa1 '..-0"'"
--.....,.. .... --. .
~
b1:.:
IDU ....
.
I
~IIOCW
MWRrY
.
",
~, .
~ ,
~:j' ..
. ~
Il
.
NOTE:
1. AU LOCATIONS ARE APPROI..ATE
2. SITE BOUNDARY BASED ON .
TAl MAP IN HRS tEPA ....
~., ""'OI&._.~
-----------------------
'IGORE 2
lifE LAYOUT
I8GGINS F-
-------
A
...
~
S ..
~
~
.
! .,
~
..
to-
::
..
ii
z
- 9
:, =...
>
..
'. is ~
-J8I
. ,- oL
A"
248 LEGEND
... .....,. f 1
--
.... .............
..............
'. ,....... ........ ,. 111.
,... .... SIII8DII8 f..... ,....
'~"..F- . ~
,.. TMIIAII1..... FII If.
....... .
,. TIiIuIIc-.. "II '.Hf.
1.1...
........ ""'...iM t~.Ii1fU8_.
... P-...c:.--
AZMI1H ....
~
. I
ICME
.
148
-
NO VERftCAL EXAGGERAtION
SOURCE: INTERPRETED FROM
USEPA 1986a.
FIGURE 3
GENERAUZED GEOLOc
CROSS S~CTlON A- A'
HIGGINS FARM
-------
::;;rww.--
. ~~----~----
-- ~~--- -r----.
~~-==----T-----Ir-..
----- ---~ , I ~
L ------ -- ... I .
J ------::::-- -- -- ~ I'. II
--- ------- - } II
----, . II ~, II I'
: .. IQ .~' dl . D~i:J
" .... . .
I ' 11:1
~.-~
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.T8 \
I
I
I
II
~ ...--- J: (}~
.... ",,---..:-.c-- '-- --6 ..
--"'- I J
";:--;," :
\1 ,~ I ,
.::t::~' I~
: ,II
: II
I
I
I
I
.
,- ~.
"'. - '
",-
11-' q --
~ q -
~q '.
/, :i' . .
~ ., .
. .
.
8
. .
.e.. .a.._- --. .
i~'" I.
. t.""
-f' . I'.J-t:
---
.
......
---...
... ~ .....
"""" ,~". MIID- MI....,...
1ICIt""A' n ........ -
---..."""""",- '- """'0., "....018,...,.., MfhCIIII
-. b ~ ,.., ......INIrCI8WW..,......
. "\ ---~-
-~~.. b:t T
. . . '. ';(\> ~.-
.
.
.
.
./
..,., ....
pcM"""
. "" MIA
-10
.
.
i
"
II
------~~J~~:_------
.-.
A "j....-. .
.---. .
., ...
1.
. t
I"
'.''''''''.'' ,....
....-
It.t..... " e. '0 t ..,....... ..""".... .
11
......,"" -- ...:
. - . GIIIII8G I&.N
fOlIC . f~ 01 0lIl'" c-.. .
'ClIO . ,. 01 MIDI Co1II8II8
..... '
. -- :::,,~u...--:
........ -,,&MIl
. .. ."'''''''''11.
aGCArOf..... ...
....... .UI:' UDII-
01..11. -.......
.-~
"...
~&88'
-
-
,
'IGURE 4
SITE PlAN WITH
IIOHITORING WEU. LOCATIDNS
HIGGINS FARM
-------
;'. !"""."'''.8=r_-
I
""fMIIN
,~A
.,) t...
~~
vo :\,.
/ 'Ooi "
-
r
i
r
.'
\:
I
I
,
--_JL-_---------------~-~---1~~.-----~----
------------- ----- --~-~----~-~~---
: ' ~"- "
: 8 ' ,',.
: - c, ,,-
rJ ~ d..~a
\ . .."
QI ::' IIfU \~
!'r':--;{':--':5!-:~~~-~
\1, 1/ -. -~
.~'/ TI'-...'" h
: ~
. ,~
,,:;:: II
.
.
.
.
.
"
"
18B8:
~\
.1eI "
IC:I
-
,...
.
',-,
A.~ '
d~~ ",
:i"
~ f'
8
.~,
o-~-~\
~y~. ~
"-:f::'\ .... .,..
->
"
. ~..' --",
- .... .....,.
-
NI".II"'-
- .,...
:;-- ..-rIM
---
.......
...... - ..... ",...1&118
:---- II,.aru. -- VIIIO
......A4; I. ~ ..-
.......
II'-'Z,
,---
..
, .
.--
PIGURE S '
tESTM. TA£NcH."
MOUND LOCATIONI
HIGGINS fAIW '
.
" -_...___.!e!S'.L~~:-
------
V-rf-'=-'=:' - - -"'" -1
-
-.~...
- '
r
v
.. ..... --
v r
....
-------
.
~f:~~" ~I~~'::""':" .\ .
, . ~;i~Jfit.[r!-?,. ..';. : ,.1 'j'.r I:
"t!' ':"':!.'"'' ~~";"i.,~:..!.t'" 0. ."".' ~" ~ .
.; ~ I 1:1..:. \ .. . . .
---- --...
fIT ,,"11---.........,... .. "''''''~!"T
,I" ..'
--r"""I"""'"
""""r ~ IJ. r ~ ,,-. ............. .."1"" ... """"-1
. .
~
II
. ....."'" --'--
~- -~-------=-~....~.~---_...\
De ----- -~--- .
~L._-~------=-==-=- -- -----
===-r- --- ~ - ..~ ..~ o. [; \ )
.~ . 1-- . ....?..~ ~~ ~ ~o. ~~o
. ~- "'11#1/160.... ~
. ~, ... [j --- ~
\. :;, .. A 0",
:~ .- ". ~..... V~ .:
. a '"
~ ... -.........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
=-:---- .,...IU
..MIlD.,.. I L '..I7M..".
.... --- """" J "', --.
,.
,
~.
......
........... .....
............. .....
. 11M ....... ......
- ,...
- -.-- ........ 1M .
\.
t
'::'~
... ....
=-........
.... .:......
~
.--
.
-tt .
t~
\. FIGURE 6 .
SURfACE SOlI.. ...AClEW.1
AND SED8lENTu.LQ
-------
I ~ ~.-o
~' ..
.-, q ..
~ q \
~q \\
~ q'/ . ..
. \
\
8. \, _rOfUN' "."
'--------------------7 .
.....7"
~
IJWlIIOCIC .
,...n-
.
, ,I
.... ----
...--.;u.-- - ---
,r-.1\r---..--
" II
It" II
It II
Q'. tt.p .
-
....,..,.... iIMl
GIN). -..No &IV
roao . rcp 0# D6IU CAIIII8
roc. ... 0# ... GiIIIII8
'.
-
- --- ...........
............... ....
I
~, fMtIH
.-..
A
eoGIID8Mrr. ...... .,.", IUNI
....... -
~", 1'IHIIr'OQl'1l8IInIID ..,...
,... .........1Nn i ..........
...,.,... --........
~
o-z=o...',\
~~...
.' .. .~.~
. ,\
>
~
'==="-T .
... .".
-
4
.
.
.
'IGURE 7
tilX-WELL EXTRACTION
SCENARIO FOR IOURC8
MEA CAP1URI
.
\ -
~".,',
... '0' ... f.'.;.... ...",,,
-------
.. 10..
AIR
FILTER
DISCHARGE
TO
SURFACE
WATER
ION FINAL pH .
EXCHANGE ADJUSTMENT
AIR
STRIPPING
TOWERINTERMED~TE
pH .
ADJUSTMENT
,.
~
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION I
fLOCCULATION
EQUAUZATION
TANK
.,1
REGENERANT
RECLAIMED BACKWASH
SLUDGE FOR
DISPOSAL
PIGURE 8
ALTERNATIVES 2 AND 3
BEDROCK WEll EXTRACTION,
METALS PRECIPITATION.
AERATION, AND ION EXCHANGE
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
""":J.I.--_..A8-:'-:------
'r-. r---. . .
I, ."
\t II
ci'. t'p .
I
",) 1-,
~~
, ~"\. ::= IIUOIIDflifmIllW..
V " .......".......
.A-' \,6 "'. ~-=.".
." IlESIOENCE. PACrtOCA-
"- OFWEU 0II1ftDIIBI'rI8
......
- ,...
...-- ........"
... ----- ...
~".,,,,,,. 1M!
GIllIG' ~....,
rooc. rOf' 0# ~ CAI8I8
,.. .. III .... GM8I8
~...... MI.""'"
....... -
,..,....... t'HlIt" T IVIIIO"""
,.., AMML ....aI ~ II .-.........
..,....... .........
.~
"
~1IOCIr .
,......'" .
"'~
~.
>-
.'
~
... .,.,
.
~'
.-, //
d"""
"""
~
~ ~
8
PIGURE 9
,.. WELL me-WIDE
CAP1UIiE IC:ENARIO
.
----~-~~J~~--------
.
..-
rr-'
.
.. , .... .,
it
. I I,'
.....~,. .
. . ,"....".
.,.. ....... ........
-------
~
-------
tABLE 1
RI Objectives aDd Allocla1ecJ Tasks
Objedive RITask
Identify source areas . Surface ,eophysics
" . SoD ps survey
,. . . -:;'r - . Test pitS
Define contamination of soDs, . Topoaraphic survey of lite
surface water, and sediment . SoD ,as survey
'. SampJe coDeCtion from surface
1011, surface water, and sediment
.' Subsurface IOD sampJe coD,eenon
throu&h soD borinp and durin,
, , weD instaDauon
. TesJ pitS
Characterize site hydroaeoJol)' . Fracture irace anaJ)'sis
and around ~'ater contamination . SoD borinp
. BorehoJe aeophysics
. Monitor1na weD mstaDation
. Packer lesUna
. SampJe coDection from
.
monitorina weDs and residentiaJ '
weDs
Identi~' cuJtura1 resources . Staae 1-A historicaJ survey
Determine risks 10 humans! . Human beaJth and environmentaJ
-------
c:.InPO""
AleIOftC
BC1IZCftc
BromobclW1lc
Cartloe diaullidc
Cartlon leU'8ehloridc
CIIlorobcflUJlc
ClllororoMD
2.CJtlorololuCftc
..chlon)\olumc
dI-1': .Diehloroelhcnc
1.1.DieltJorOethanc
1':.Diehloroclhanc
1.1.Di:hlorOClhcnc
1':.DithJoropropinc
1.] .Diellioropropcnc
Eth~.lbcllU1lc
Trani.] ,2.DiehioroethCftc
1.1.2,:. TClra ehloroct haDC
TClraellloroelllcnc
ToIuC1lc
1.] .1.2. TClrae!oroethallc
1.1.1. Triehloroethane
1.1,2- Trithloroethane
Tritilloroelhcftc
Triehloron uoromrt hanc
Vinyl Chloridc
XylC1lCl (IOUlI)
"8118-
c.-._1Iea
Dr.... NIl)
J.2
I'i::.:::n~":;~D:\;:
IA
~.._- .
-..
13
r;.:.., ..- ''''-:;''''
~.~~:
110
u
2.'
:::::':::rn:t)S~..:'i':.:
10
. . . . .
... ... ..... .
:::\(a/::::::..:.:c'?
....:.,... :.:.:;:::.( ::j::.:l0,o.
IJ6
u
1.0
110
'.$
::::i/:tn(../:;~..t::
1.9
SA
42
::::,;:'):'E{:;:::::Uoo:.:.::;:;:::
.:{:(:{:) i::::::i":Di:l' \=i:i
u
ht::i;(:,::\.:\i.:::;::::.l::.:':
w
tAlLE 2
c..,.,... "G"'" w.. ......
.. s.... ... ,....,., a....ara-a..
-
-
IU GWQ
Clttllta8
N'I)
EGau.,' ...,....
\'OL4TUJ: OAG""'1CS.::!W?1J:tt:fi{;::DqwM@m;~;:if&.U:im)::;1gft.%@.4.wttlt~.mfi.rlo/.fj~$H:~:~1~~:/4iq;t.~~f'tt:;':::::'::::'.:.:.:::::::.::;:.:.:...'
-
-
-
" -
-
-
...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10
-
u.
-
-
o.s
-
-
-
-
-
100
:a
-
-
IA
-
1.000
-
10
-
ID
-
J
-
u
-
-
-
..ou
-
-
..,.,.., Ma.'
N'I)
-
,..,., Ma.'
N'I)
ift!tii;\ti1Wiil(: :@Ptt%t,j.~M;:::E~f:',:::..:
-
1.2
- -
- -
:a J
~, '... ::J
,.:,..:'- -
- 100
- -
- -
J
,
10
:~;¥.~~~{;t~f.¥~:""':~~~;~~r:.'
-
};i~~~~f:w~r~~~1.;::;~~t1~};::;;~;
1
.. .. . , . .
):;ir~!#f~}P?:.:j ":,;:~~:%~~?\j.;'~
:W~;)i:~~;~~',o'...im}(::;ij.:..
-
, .. .,
:~:ff.t#;:9?F~f: ~;~~~%::~:i:!;i ~t:.
..?}:"'::,':{v:::,"::{;{:{.\'::::::.:
- 5
- -
- ,..
10 100
-
:~~t:f:~~j~;~;~;~~!~:Bfi11:~j~:~~~~j~Wfi~t~
-
-
JI
-
'1~;~:{~;1f4~~i~~~~i~t::@~~ff~~~~;~:~
-
?~:i~IJ~~~;~~~if:f:2;::~~~j~~~~f$~jr:[
..
-
.
..' . . ,.
':~:~~ttt~~~~;i~~':~B~~~~;})::t:::~
t.OOO
-
-
;:~j~f:~(#t~t~~~.J);fii~~f~6~\\
::~~~1~f;t\~~¥f:?;~;' :~;~J¥.!]i~fri::~:::
-
:fj.}':iWF?i:h%\{::!}.::'
10.000
'.
,.....
MCa.c" ~)
. .
-
o
.
.-
-
o
-
-
-
-
'70
-
o
,
o
-
'00
JOO
-
I
1.000
-
200
s
o
-
o
-------
.tABLE 2
c..,..... ., c..... W..., ......
II 11811 ... ,.r8l ............
...... JU CWQ "'1...., Ma.' r"r8l Ma.' r.r8l
c..c......... 0tI8rI88 fM'I) fM'I) MCJ..c' Nil)
c..,.... DtIlCt8ll (NIl) fM'I)
ED"'" ........
SDnVOlATn..! 01iGA.~iC8::::{¥4;;f*t1it~Wt!li(~j~.~¥&J*~Th~II~if.&..ttit¥'W:f:ffiit,*It::;W1~mt:1r~%r.f:i1?':::::...:,'.. <.
liI(2bnz.cae .0 - tOO tOO tOO 100
U.nidllorobenzene s.o - tOO - tOO .. 100
1,4.nichlorobenzflle 2.0 - 7S - 7S '$
nj.".buTylpllthillte I.' - 100 - - -
DielllyJ pMhlll" 1.0 - s.ooo - - -
Hc:uclllo",buUldine s.s - 1 - - -
Jaopr~rbellZne ... - - - - -
Nlpllthllene UI - - - - -
1\i.1~'lber.zetlt s.o - - - - -
S.Pro~ IbcllZenc 4.5 - - - - -
p.bopro~.ltoluenc $.0 - - - - -
Pllnol '.0 SJoo .. - - -
Scc.lu~'lbenzenc 4.' - - - - -
Tcn.Bu~'Jbcnzene 4.' - - - - -
1~.Tnchlo'obcnzene SA - - ', . - -
1':".Tnclllo",bcnzene U - , , , ,
1.2..'.TnlZletll)'lbenzenc 12 - - - - -
UJ. TnlZlelll)'lbenzene U - - - - -
ISORC;"",c:s :.::{:::):\:/:::::.(:::t::::.:.:}:}~tiifJ:@:::W#,m::mi::::::!::!Mili;!:f$.@tm~Ef!1It!M%f~~l%f.:tJ:;t.tl#~:i:!:j\tf?~itIW&If:t:;~!:@!;i:!!;@:::t!t>:::i,:(:.:::.
Aluminum JOC.OOO.o - JO.2DO - - -
AntilZlony 2I.S - 2 - 1-10 J
l.riulZl 1,190.0 - z.ooo - 2.000 2.000
BeryIliutD :::::::r:f::f:@tiS.'}r:: - t.OOI - ;*~~i:~~1t~~~T=fIf=12:.ji~~i)~li!~i~f:~~~~j:~; 0
c.CSlZliulZl ..s 10 4 - S $
Ch",lZIiulZl ;':':.::::/?H\:'.::.ii:::,:::: .:~:?{:..:'.:i,:::i:!{' 1. - i:it~::f;:~~::::;::::::iOO:t'~g:~:;:t?;i... 100
Cobalt 826.0 - - - - -
.:::::i:::::)::::i:a.,.50J:\::: .. .". .",".'''''", .," ::'#:fr,\;:F';1JDO"..;:[:::.Ut.::i;;.
-------
tAlLE 2
c..,utM. ., G"'" We.."""
.. ..... ... ,..... .~._... .ap J .n
.......- IU GWQ ,,-,...., Ma.' r..... Ma.' '84...1
CeDCI."''''' CrIIItta' N'I) N'I> Ma.c' (,&,'1)
CeID""'" DtIleW (MIl) N'I>
EldltI88' ........
;if,\i::":O~~.'i:ti .. ..... .......
Iroll \i:':';_~:'i.f IDO - - -
Lad 'i~~j:f.:(;;GA:.:~;~~~~~f SO s - ::~0}:6:t:u '\:/;:::\:'.; 0
-
M.,,,.iulD 27".0 - - - - -
M.lllln- :::::ml\.F~~:i:::;;:::: .~~~tt~i.{t~fB SO - - . -
;::1~~?;~::,:t\t::;=-c:i:.:ti;: ::::i:dt:::l00':':\i:::.;;,.:: .
Niekel - 100 - 100
VlnadiulD 1.'90.0 - - - - -
Zine In.o SP/JO SP/JO - - -
"01.:
-
MI,,1a ,.ul.. IN 10&11. 801 diuoMd. CDftCIIIIu81io111.
'Nrv. Je~' CiftlUftd WII" OUlli1)' Sl8ltdarda. 0.. GW2.
'Srv. Je~ Dnnkinl \\'11" R1lulaliolll NJAC 7:10. .
"EnYiro"lDen,,1 Pftl~aioD AlellC)' '.nIDII')' J)rUak.ift& WIIC It.,uJaIioal.o CPa 1'1. MuilDUID COIIuIDiunl LtwIa INI MIZiIDUID
Ccnl8lDillllll .
l",t\ocl 00111. .
'Eml;nl "rv. J~' CiftlUlld W"cr Ouallry Sulldarda NJAC 7:N. ..
8J'ropolCd Nrv. Jc~ Oroulld WIIC Ouali1)' S&8ndarda. Iuruu of Wiler Supply rUllia.. lillury 1192. CIaa tv..
- Vllue 110: 1\'IilabJe.
. SII!\~I~~~ III\'r beef! oceeded
.
-------
~. c;:..,-.,... %AILE 3
en- PII ""'11 .. ....... NJDIn '"a"',,*
8M EPA .........., ..........
, , ~ " ..
..
tUDl7£ "'"" leU
CIeu.. ........ IPA
.- ...... ...... (a"'."" "'..a....
1181108 m e..,.... e........... ....1IIfau 1811) ......,...
\'OIATJU ORCA."C:S 'i:i:i8j~:it*~;MWtt:t*~:;%W:fuW:iffi._~*I~~#~$¥M~¥t.i4.1:W:.~m~~f$f%Mt:I?~W~:::;;i::'::r;..:
n.ooox 1J.DichJoraetllaee ..00 ppb ,"000 ppb (1.000 ppb) .. '.000 ppb
n.cJC2 1.1,2.2.TcU8chloraetMee .. ppb 1.000 ... J,14S ppb
n.ooox 1.1J.TrIchJoroeIhue ~'t~'.AO'fPb~(i .i~t~@;M~;.uoo;_~:~-''tf: I1JOO ".,
n.oooYD A.arIo8c' .. ..eo.OO ". 1.000.000 ". (50.000 ppb) 26."'.000 ppb
n.ooox alorofonD .. U.oo ppb It.ooo ppb (1.000 ppb) IOS.ooo ppb
n.ooox TC\I'Ichloraetllae ';!.~.oouo"jip.;.:t~ '!r:I$1t:N1:-':PIi~:~lf~;*;: :/g/uno,..":<::.
n.ooox Clr1IorI IlU'8ch1oridc 2.00 ppb 2.000 ppb (1.000 ppb) ..t2D ".
n.ooox TridllOl'ClCtbnc .UOO.oo ppb - SUOO ppb
11'.ooox 1J.Dicbl0l'ClClbnc (10181) IS.OO ppb ".000 ppb (50.000 ppb) '.050.000 ".
n-400X ToIuetIC a.oo ppb 1.000.000 ". (SOO.ooo ppb) 5530'00.000 ppb
1D11\"0L4TIU OIGA.~c":::::/,:¥:':.!n.:\;~:t;i\;*}#l(j:::N;MMWi#r~.I{#gfJ.;¥.%g$I:;jW6~%I~i1i~':@~@fi;fktW:j~]:i.::':"
11'.ocn 1J.Didllor'DbcftzneC a.o.oo ppb 1.100.000 ppb a..=.ooo ppb
11'.0000 lenz.oic acidb ,",00.00 ppb - (-) -
11'.(IOO(j BIS(2CI~'lh~'I)plltha"IC 00.00 ppb 100.000 ppb ....- ppb
11'.000" PluOI'IlItbnc S'Jo.OO ppb 100.000 ppb 10.'726.000 ppb
PCJlI8ClIlOrDptlnolb .. .... "'" 1:.000 '""""'"""" '. ).hiJiiO:",1;\t;::.
1?.oooo .iioo:OOQ.oo',pb ,Jill (]OO,OOO) ",'"
11'~" Pllenallllll'CJlc 110.00 ppb - - ..
PilCllolb ..
TP.oooo ".00 ppb 20.000.000 ppb JC2.'20.ooo ppb
TP~" P)mIc 130.00 ppb 500.000 ppb 12.''u ppb
~ESnCJDU1'aa ::'i.,:::)t\::&b:;:::t::::tJ:.t@:t'W~:i.:!:fi~::@Wi,:f:!~f+,;~!.t,0r\i,@{Mi;lr~i:j\:il~f:'::;;r~;~;;:::f.~N$f.@Jift.%%1#:~J@W~it};:.:.
1?.oooo '.".DD'" 0.0 ppb 2.000 ppb (100.000 ppb) 1.asO ppb
1?~1 Hepl8chJr a..O ppb ISO ppb 1.0.1 ppb
11'~1 Hcpl8chJor IpCIIidcc U.o ppb - -
. . . '::"ii::.:::~iih4:;:f:~2:;::t@i:@~)~it%t\~:~j;i;l~i*Jf{k?f=i:i:rt&iWt%1:~~:.:\;M~It!i1:f&1I~k;;lr%jIF1!;~~!;:):;Wi;:fM~f.i@i:h8::
»fOilS$. Tt:RA.~5
1?.oooo 1.2.3.'.'.' ".Hepl8chJOrDdibazo.pocIiama Ul.l" ppb - -
11'.4OOC) 1.2.3.'.6.' ,a.Hcpl8cJ\lorcdibenzofuru 'UOO ppb - -
17.0000 1.2.3.'.' ".'.Hepl8ctllOrDdibcuoruru 1- ppb - -
n.ooole 1.2.3.'.' ,I.Hc:uchIOl'Odibctlzo.pocliCIIIII 1.$51 ppb - -
11'.oooYD 1.2.3.'.' ,I.Hc:uchlol'OdibcllZOf'uru US, ppb - -
t'!j,. ; ~ .~;..' :;
..
,; (.
-------
tAlLE 3
c..,.,.. efT- PIt ...111 .. ...,.... !QD1n .......
... D'A ......... lei...".,
:"-z: ~ --
JQDEPE..."", w
a.ua, 51aMar11 D'A
...-, De"'" ca."'.1181 .....a...
5..lIoa ID Ce.,.... Ceac,."'''. 1a1118If8a .0) ..........
T?~O 1.2.3.6.' ,I.HcuchlorDdibeftZ00p04ic8111 J.J1J ppb - -
l?~Y 1.2.3.' ,I.Pcn&lchlorDdibal&oCuru '.Ot ppb - -
l?~Y 2.3...6.' ,l-HcuchlorDdibcuDruru '.G2 ppb - - -
1'.0000 TOIaI.HeplacIlIOl"Ddibn»p4ia1ia ...., ppb - -
1'.0000 TOIaI.Hrp&lellloradi~. ~ 1I1.23oC ppb - -
1'.0000 TOlal.HcucllloradibeUOo~ic8iII IUD ppb - -
1?~0 TOlal.HcueillorodibcuofUl8D 121.069 ppb - -
1'.0000 TOlal.oNclllorodibcllzo.po4iC1d11 1".015 ppb - -
1'.0000 TOlal.oNcblorDdibnloflll8D UUu ppb - -
1?~0 TOIa I.Pcnlaclllorodibeftlol'UftIl S.u. ppb - -
r.-;~G4."C:S
1'0003 "'wlDin laID CJ,IOO.DO ppIII - -
1'.0000 AIIlilDo~" D.DO ppIII l' PIIIII (-) 101.26 pplD
. . . .:~~~t;~~[:~~f::~(';:iO :ppj'~':::{?}?~~r~~f);::;
...n."""'"'' ... '::.:.jS." Pi-
1?.oo1 Nvnic' .::::::1.,jo.ooPiiiii. .\
1P «leX B.rium~ 212.00 pptII SOO pp&D (-) 19.030 ppm
. . . . ..
,'.... . ,"'"''''''''
T?~r Bc~'lIiulD ::{?;:~ppiit?'b:;:: - >:':':'.Ia PP"
1P~X c.~lDiulD' ""'" 1 ppID (-) W pplD
l?~A c.lciulD 2,150.00 ppIII - -
. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. ::;:iUSD.ppe(V1)
T?.oooo CI\roIDiulD'" ;;[.;:;~:;;~i:;::;~: -(-)
. %'70,000 Jlpm(U1)
l?~r Cobalt 210.00 ppIII - -
T?.0a3 Copper 295.00 ppID - 10,DC pplD
1P~1 ~'IlIidct UO ppID - ppID !JOO pplD
TP.oo3 hn 102.000.00 lIPID - -
TP~A Lud n90 ppID - SOO pplD
T?.oooX M.p.iulD' 10,'700.00 ppID -(-) -
1P~r M.npnllC 2,13O.DO ppIII - -
1?~3 Nic~1 35.10 ppIII - 592 pplD
T?~X POlauium' 2,.c80.00 ppID -(-) -
T?~Y Si~ 110 ppIII 40ppm (-) 1~?. ppm
-------
UBLE 3
(H.,.,.... .,T8I PIa ..8hI .. ........ MJDIPI""""
.. irA ..,.au.. ..,.,v*
~.IP ~ ~~ ,-..
. IUD17E...""",
Cluau, ......... IPA
'., ...... De"'" (a8W.81181 ..,.""
.18110. ID c..,.... c:..a....... .....".. leD) ......,..
Sodium' ..
n.oooy 1,190.00... -(-) -
n.oo2 Vlnadium ,c.oo". .- . 1.1OJ ppID
TP.002 ZiIlC 106.00... - 55'- ppm
I()SVoU Dil"tC&M t21S.,.oll. HUIliI H8IIIIa hllI8lioe '1ft 8: ~h,._", Jt8k.8uIIII ~ "'..181i111
Golla.. Ducmber U. 1"1. . .. .
~w pilampl. "'" ob&lilled I' I 'eptll ",1.1 r8ft. 'he MmUE propcIIId aurr.. I0Il claDup III"" 8ft applicable
110m I dtplll 0' 0.: rftt, .hulII Ihc IUbiurCallt 1011 1&I*rda art Ippli18b1c rro. I *PdI ", 2~ f8eL Due to die 8pdI
nll'c of 1.3 1ft&, which O\ICNpI deptll nD,,,'" &lie surfaCIC lad IIIbsuIfut 8IIadanIa 11'1 ,.....&811. 'he III""""
I&lNII,. Ire ill parllll"'"
-ne I.' pil .... ampld " I 'cptll IIcNIIIII 0 aad 2 - 8IId &lie 1DItiII,IUIfallt IOIJ III"" ..,. Jll'C"'idIlll .. dI8c
""1ICa. ..
'AlllIoul" ,., pi! ..ulla Ire ror 10&11 clm>miu8. III .c:e8da1l1lt illbcIwD 10" -- 1IIen arc 80 I8UIIa far...
iIIdMdUlI cIIromium Ipcci8 cM=ium VI 8IId cllrDlDiU8 ilL
Ncu: 8_8. .S&llIlIIrd do8 801 8IiI1 for ... -JIOUDd
.:':':'\ . Slandlrd, hlYt beetI......;,
.
.
'..
- .
" . .
-------
Table 4
Comparlso.ol Sarlace Sau Results to Proposed NJDEPE Stuadards
aDd EPA RIsk-Based Standards.
Station ID
Hl&hest Detected
CoftCtfttntlon
NJDEPE Proposed SOU .
Cleanup Standard
(Residential
Sarlare SaU)
EPA
RIsk-Based
Standard"'
55-061 Benzene 2.0ppb 3,000 ppb . 271XXJ ppb
55-061 Chlorobenzene 3.0ppb 37,OOOppb $,536,000 ppb
55-061 Styrene 2.0ppb 23,000 ppb 21,090 ppb
SS-032 Tetrachloroethene 100.0 ppb 9,000 ppb 12,210 ppb
55-061 Toluene 2.0ppb 1,000,000 ppb SS3.600,OOO ppb
SS-QS9 Trichloroethene 67.0 ppb SS,500 ppb
55-061 Xylencs (Total) 5.0 ppb 360,000 ppb $53.600,000 ppb
::~t.duTi~.~~t~~~~~:::::::::~~::::::::~:/~):.::\:;{:~:t~)))::::::?~~:~:\::::(~:::::f:m::::::t:~:::::~::::::::::::::.:::.::.::::i:.:::.~::.::.:~::::~..::::~::::::::::~::::.::::;:::~:.::::::i::::::~:::::::::::i:::::::::~:::~1:::::::::::::;::::::~::~:iii:~::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::\:::::::::::::::::!::.:.
41.0 ppb
SS«MI 4-Methylphenol
SS..QS4 Anthracene
5S-OS2 Benzo(a )anthracene
~2 Benzo(a)pyrene
5S-OS2 Benzo(b )fluoranthene
5S-OS2 Benzo(ghi)perylene
5S-OS2 Benzo(k)fluoranthene
ss-oos Benzoic acid
ss.ooo Bis(2
-------
saatlon ID
SS-006
SS-006
SS-006
ss.o49
5S-041B
s5.oo6
SS-049
SS-006
SS-006
ss.o52
SS-006
~
ss.o4.S
ss.o43
.....:0-....."
SS-063
SS-063
SS-063
SS-04O
ss.o49
SS-002
SS-063
SS-()J9
SS-OS9
ss-a32
ss.oss
SS-OS3
$S-063
ss-a5B
ss-a32
55-039
TotaJ-TetrachlorodibenzoCuran 0.040 ppb - -
.
23.300.00 ppm
Table 4
COIIIp8rboa 01 Surface SOU Results to Proposed NJDEPE SIaadanIs
8ad EPA Risk.Based Standards
NJDEPE Proposed SOU
Cleanup Slaadard
HJahest Detected (Residential
Compound Connntntion Surface SoU)
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran 0.030 ppb -
1,2,3,4,7.8-HexachlorodibenzoCuran 0.040 ppb -
1,2,3,6, 7.8-Hexachlorodibe~p-dioxin 0.050 ppb -
2,3, 7.8- Tetrachlorodibe~p-dioxin 0.100 pPb -
Oc:tadIlorodibenzo.p-dioxin 15.200 ppb -
OctxhlorodibenzoCuran 0.720 ppb -
Tetrachlorodibenzo.p-dioxin (rI'EF) 0.107 ppb -
TotaJ-Heptachlorodibenzo.p-dioxin 1.600 ppb -
TotaJ-HeptlchlorodibenzoCuran 0.510 ppb -
TotaJ-Hexadllorodibenzo.p-dioxin .0.090 ppb -
Total-HexachlorodibenzoCuran 0.190 ppb -
Total-PentachlorodibenzoCuran 0.090 ppb -
Total-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.130 ppb -
Aluminum
-
Antimony
7.00 ppm
14 ppm
20 ppm
Arsenic
... .........' ..........
...."......... ..........
. . . . . . .. ..... . . . . . . . . . . . .
...,............,- .......,........
:::t:m(Jit~:J¥~r::::f:::::
397.00 ppm
600 ppm
2ppm
Barium
Beryllium
....."'''' .. -,
. ......... ..
............. .... . ...
...... ....... ............ .......
:~I~~~rr~;~~:ppi~(r1f!irt
Calcium
3,130.00 ppm
28.50 ppm
-
Chromium
-
CObalt
37.60 ppm
193.00 ppm
-
Copper
600 ppm
280 ppm
Cyanide
3.40 ppm
48,200.00 ppm
-
Iron
Lead
:pt~~:~~::::':::::::i::::i:::i:,:::::::i:::i:;:::::::j~;'~':.i..::::;:::::ii::;i::::::;:::
Magnesium
,
i 3,220.00 ppm -
1,270.00 ppm -
0.62 ppm 14 ppm
21.90 ppm 250 ppm
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
-£PA
Risk-Based
saandanf8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
107.26 ppm
. . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . .
"""""",".........
:::::j:j:::j::~:~.:.:::/:
19,030 ppm
',"....-.-,......
....."'.,.,.,,,.
................ .
:::;:t?f«~fi]$;i{':
-
1,3S0 ppm (VI)
270,000 ppm (III)
-
10.034 ppm
S,soo ppm
-
SOO ppm
-
-
79.58 ppm
..-
-------
Table 4
Comparison.of Surface SUU hsults to Proposed NJDEPE Standards
and EPA Risk.Based Standards
NJDEPE Proposed SUU
Cleaaup saandard. EPA
Blahut Detected (ResIdential Risk.Based
saatlon ID Compound Contentratlon Surface SUU) saandard.
5S-063 Potassium 946.00 ppm - -
SS.Q5O Selenium 3.20 ppm 63 ppm 1,349.4 ppm
ss.o32 Silver 15.50 ppm 40 ppm 1,349.4 ppm
ss.oo2 . Sodium 362.00 ppm - -
ss.G29 '!ballium 0.46 ppm 2ppm 19.03 ppm
~3 Vanadium 193.00 ppm 380 ppm 1.903 ppm
SS-OSI Zinc 210.00 ppm 1.soo ppm 55,360 ppm
IOSWER Directive 92&5.7~IB. Human Health Evaluation Pan B: Developmenl of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals,
December 13, 1991.
NOte: "-". Standard does nOl exist Cor this compound
:::~:::~~::C:
;::~~::::@ . Standards bave been exceeded
-------
.
tiBLE S
Comparison III SoD Iorin& .uulta &0 PropoNd NJDEPE StaDdarda
.
-
NJDEPE Proposed
Biahuc Detected SoU Cleanup
Station ID Compound ConCtlltratloD 'tandard
(Subsurface SoU)
VOIATn.E 6R~ANIa:I~#i~!t}t~!~-~-'\~~~~~ll~~'l_'_~%;f4.11~i11F;;mtf:~;l~!:'::::,:::"::
5B.o13 J.1,2. TrichloroetbaDe '4.00 ppb J.ooo ppb
5B-006 l,2.Dicbloroetbaae o.so ppb 1.000 ppb
5B.012 2.Butanone 2.00 ppb 50,000 ppb
5B.o12 Acetone 49.00 ppb 50,000 ppb
5B-006 Benzene 69.00 ppb 1.000 ppb -
5B.OO6 Chloroform 210.00 ppb J,ooo ppb
5B.OO4 Methylene chloride '.00 ppb 10.000 ppb
:::.:::;;:;~:.;::::-':;'.;;.;.~::;,;;:;.:;::..:'::::-.h.:;:.:::;:;~;:.; :,)lf1:CQj:'PPb:'::;';r.P:.,::'
5B.o11 Tetrlcbloroetbene ':""':11OD.OP . ,,,,y,,,..,
/1\K ' , ' ." P.Ai,:
5B.oo5 TrichJoroetbene 4.00 ppb -.
,. ORGANics':'I;~11fWtflri~l.tI,*f(%.#]lf.A._.~W;:.t~~.i€:Wt.\:~i:Wi,:::'::::
SDIIVOtA mE
51.eX)! Benzyl butyl pbtbalate J,loo.oo ppb 100.000 ppb
51-003 Bis(2.etbylbtX).J)pb tbalate 1,.tOO.oo ppb 100,000 ppb
PESnCIDESiPCBI"::::::W;;:~:;:t;:::tt:;~;:~:*:1:'::i1,;t~~:t~@:i:ifm~ili:[1::~i$0;;;IIt,~~~WtM.~~~[~I:~~mtt~&]w:~iw~~~Mf~"{'::::':;::::::':
51.013 Aroclor.1260 (PCB) 5.20 ppb 100,000 ppb
DIOXlNS'TVRi~S .:::t:i:;W;t1~~i:fi:Zt~I;~i;~¥\r.:~:i;;:w.f1mif.I[*;.II~f.~;[(~I~_\fl.~*Wj~~I*~?mij(':::;;"1:::::::;(:,
51-003 1.2.3.4.6.7 ,8-Hepllcblorodibenzo.p-dioxiD 0.230 ppb -
51-001 1.2.3.4.6.7,8-HeptlchJorodibenzoturaa 0.009 ppb -
51-001 1.2.3.4.7 ,8.9.HeptachlorodibeDZOfw'aa o.OO8»b -
51-013 1.2.3.4.7,8-Heuchlorodibenzofuran 0.030 ppb -
5B.o13 1,2.3.6,7,8-Heucblorodfbenzofuraa 0.030 ppb -
59.001 1.2.3,"1 .8.9.Hexac:hJorodibenzofuran 0.003 ppb -
51-001 1,2.3.7 ,8-PelltlcbJorodfbenzofuran O.DOS ppb -
51.013 '2.3.4.6.7,8-Heucblorodfbenzofuraa 0.020 ppb -
51-013 2.3.7,8- Tetrac:blorodibenzo.p-dioliD 0.030 ppb -
-------
%AILE 5
Comparison of SoD IorID& Raulu to Proposed NJDEPE S&udardI
I
NJDtrE Proposed
Ri&hest Deladed SoU Clanup
Scatlon m Compound Concentratloa Scandard
(Subsurface SoU)
5B.003 Oetlchlorodibcnzo.p-diOliD 76.00 ppb -
5B-OOi Octlchlorodibcnzofuran 0.009 ppb -
5B-003 Totll.Hepllchlorodfbcnzo.p-diOliD 0.- ppb -
5B.ool Total.HepllchlorodfbcnzofuraD 0.010 pp~ -
5B.006 TOIII.Hcucblorodfbcnzo.p-dioxiD 0.070 ppb -
5B-013 TOlal.HcxachlorodibenzofuraD 0.080 ppb -
5B.OO6 Total.PenllchlorodibcnzofuraD 0.006 ppb -
5B.OO6 TOIII. Tetracblorodfbcnzo.p-dlaxin o.sSO ppb -
5B.OO6 Total. Telrachlo~odibenzofuraD - 0.030 ppb -
1tIETW...:{:::;i:::::;;:::::::::{~f:~i.::::::rf,~~;::::i:i::ij;::iji:[i.t:\::W::::::.:t1!;:;:i:1:::!::r:::~f~%*1jF1ff~f.~~~~W).~~;¥W'i~~%1;1*11~t%(h;i1~~~ltl;~::::\~:~:::::h::.
5B-003 AJuminum 54,Joo.oo ppm -
5B-008 Anlimony 12.70 ppm -
SB.OO6 Arsenic 21.10 ppm -
5B.002 Barium 298.00 ppm -
~
5B.OO8 Beryllium 11.60 ppm -
5B.OO4 CacSmium 1.30 ppm -
5B.006 Calcium 9.680.00 ppm -
5B-OOi Chromium 21.80 ppm -
5B.013 Cobalt ".00 ppm -
5B.OO6 Copper 1.8)0.00 ppm -
5B.013D. IrOD 136.000.00 ppm -
5B-OI0 Lad 17.JO ppm -
5B-013 Magnesium ""90.00 ppm -
5B-004 Manganese moo ppm -
5B-004 Mercury o.JO ppm -
-------
~:r:.-:' -.'
.. TAIL! 5
Comparlsoa fIl SoD IorIaa ..uJlllO Proposed NJDEPE S&andards
NJDEPE Proposed
lliabest DeIed8d Soli a.nup
Station . Coaa~ . CoaCIDtntioa Standard
m (Subsurface Son)
'~... ".
S8-009 Powsium 2.760.00 ppm -
S8..oo1 Selenium 0.48 ppm -
SB..oo3 Silver J8.«) ppm -
SB.:002 Sodium 257.00 ppm -
. S8-OU' Thallium G.9Jppm -
SB-003 Vanadium 55UIO ppm -
SB-013 Zinc 25J.oo ppm -
Note: 8_8. Slandard docs Dot aist for this compond
r/:::y'gr . Standards have been excce4ed ..
.'.:. :
.
-------
tAlU 6
c.m,ar1888 "........., IuD,.. ... .. ...,.... tUDEP!""'"
... ErA 8ilk....- ........
JlUDErE"''''''' WI
CIau., ........ irA
BI&IMI8 ~ ca-"'.1I8I 8ilk......
1..118. Ce.,.... c:.oc..1r'8II88 hrfa8 WI) .........
II>
SD~8 T o&aI.Hcplldllorod ibeftloopo4liaDII 2.100 '" - -
SD.008 TO&aI.Hcudlloroditazo-p.cIiaIiD "JIG ", - -
SD.0G6 TOIII,'cn&aclllorodibeftzo.p.cIiaIiD UIO ", - -
.
SD.006 TO&aI.TCI,.dllorodiNuo p!'_a _.~ ..GIG", - -
L~O.CA.~JCI :,:;;:':}::t:;;:'~f3'~:'~\('fJ@tktf;~i~:;;:i:~f~&:t~f.;j~trJff~f~j:~i;@jt~lW.f~¥~t~i0*¥B@fiJ;}~;i%t%w~M~':t~:f'}::i)}:::::::.:.:;":'.
SD4I3 Alumillum. ",'700.000 ppID - -
SI)~ "'niID0ny8 11.. ... 1. ... 10'7.26 ppm
:;\:j::i/:::iliI';]iI::'~%b; .... .. .
SD.oGoI Arwftic 3D ppID :{::;::,~'w=
SD~ Blrium. 129.00 ppID SOO ... It.OJO ppm
SD-005 Btf')'lJium :::;:~{¥?UO'~%r:':~0 2 JIPIII }t~.2i1. ppD ....
SD.cI06 c:alcium "'.00 ppID - .-
SD-OO: Cltrolllium. 1..'" ppID - -
SD.0G6 Coball ".10 ppID - -
St).oo3 Copptr8 , J6100 ppIII 80 ppIII JO.O).8 ppl:
SD-«I3 Iron. "',tOO.GO ppID - -
SD.0G08 LDd 'U.50 ". 100 ppID SOO ppm
10-«11 MII"sium. ~ 1'.,no.OO ppID - -
SD.008 Mlnr-nsc S1LOO ppID. - -
SD~ Mcmary 0.22 ppII 1. ' "JI
ppII ppm
SD-«I3 "'~kcl. ".so ppII 2SO ppID m ppm
SD.0G08 'olaSlium 810.00 ppID - -
SD.008 SelniulII 1.'0 ppID tOppID loSe9.' pplll
SD.002 $odiulII. U7.ooppID - -
SD.oo3 V,ftldium. =-.00 ppII - ppID 1.903 pplll
SD~ Zinc ,..,., ppIII 1,S00 ppIII !!J60 ppm
'OSV.'ER Dil"CClM 921!.'7.o1B, Humaa Heald! EvaluadOli '8ft I: DcveJoplDall fIl Riat.lue.s Prelimiaary ItCIDedialio11 (;oat&.
DcalDbc1 U, 1991.
Nose: 8_. . Slindanf doa DOt aiI1 for IhiI -pau8d
';":::"'::::-;.:
. Slindardl bIYc beeII aceedld
:~
-------
UBLE 6
CMlputMa wi,...... ..,It ...... II """" 1UD1PI ""M"
8M DA JUI'."" ,.---...
JUDD-I "'"" W
a.u., ...... IPA
...... ........ ~..... 1UaII.....,
118,," m c..,.... c........... 88rt- W) .~
\'OLAT:I~ ORCA.~'CS:::gf};i!:r:M~giM*1~:~~:~]!tt~l~tli}~mW~WWw.Bt_~:t}41Wt~#::Wfffi¥~t*i;~ttti:;::::.
ID.oo2 2.JIII8I1011C. u.ao '" 1'-,000 ppb U.49C.ooo ppb
ID.cI06 CblorDCDethaae ... '" S2G.aoo ppII .,JCII ppb
ID.cI06 Toluae . J.OD '" 1'-.aoo '" SJUCII,OOO ppb
mfrVorAm.E.O.G.\.IOC8.:i:;::i.$1.fi1~~~1i:t:~1fiWi:*~l~:~t:t~¥..~a'W.W1JiWftJf._;d~ttjil$.t.\~+:ti:;{1f#;i;:::::::::.:. ..
SD-OO& 2.Mctb)illapllllllle8e 8.DO '" - -
SD-OO& .4-Mttbylpllaol ...00 '" - -
SD-OO& Mmlpbtllylae 0 ".00 ppb 1.-,000 '" I6.SDO.OOO ppb
SD.oo.c Aftthr8C811t 110.00 ... JO,OOO,OOO ppII ".510.000 ppb
SD.oo.c 8enzo(l)alltllrunt SID.DO ppb .. ppb '.0 ppb
SD.oo.c "en&o(l)~ f{#'~~_a6.:_:::~nff ., ppII :tiYioiS'ppe, .:t)::
SD.oo.c 8tftZO(b)llu0r811daat :tti,-i::".._::~i#6 ::AA#.&~f.......~I*:!!\:f: ::~:tf(m.:,pb. \::::::
SD.oo.c 8enzo(.hi)~ D.DO "' " ppb '.110 ppb
SI)oOOoI Jenzo(k )nUOI'IlItllenc GO.DO ppb ., ppb 1.121 ppb
SI)~3 Jenzoic aeid. 2JD.oo ppb - -
SD.oo.c JII(2.,thylh~)plllllll8te M.DO ppb _,000 ppII 44,.00 ppb
SD.oo.c Ch~c ::~W~:!::~:~~:::~try ..!W4tftt",':".,'W%:im:!\ JA,'790 ppb
SD.oo3 Di oll.butyl.plllllll8".. 25.DO ppII 5.100,000 ppb 26.918.000 ppb
SD.oo.c DibellZOfUr811 ".DO ppb - -
SD~ Dictllyl plllbll8te Je.DO ppb JO,ooo,OOO ppb 21'.fIO.ooo ppb
SD.oo.c F'luOI'Ilithtllt IOG.CII ppb 2.300,000 pPb 10.'126.000 ppb
SD.oo.c Indtllo(l.2.J.C'D)~ _.DO ppII ., ppb 81 ppb
SD.oo. N.phtbllnr ".00 ppb 2JD.000 ppb n,ooo.ooo ppb
SD.ocw Pbcllantbrne 440.00 ppb - -
SD.oo.c Pyrat tSO.oo ppb 1,'700,000 ppb 12.456 ppb
DiOXlS~ J1jR4.~:S
-------
. .
,
t
,
.
!
.
.
,
,
J
~ .
."
.
.
niLE 7
CHEMICALS OF POTE!\"TlAL CONCERN: nNAL SELECJ10N UST
. HIGGINS FARM
GR01JJ\"D SURFACE SURFACE
CHEMICAL WATER SOIL WATER SEDJME~"
VOLATILES
IcDzcDC ".~ 8 ND Nt)
QlorobeaztDc X" 8 Nt) ND
c;:bJorOrOnD X Nt) Nt) Nt)
1.2.t>ich1orobeDZeDc X ND ND .ND
U-t>jch1oroethuc X Nt) ND ND
1,2.Dich1oroetJwac X ND ND Nt)
1,1.Dil:hloroethcDc X ND ND . Nt)
.
1,2-Dich1oroetbaac X ND Nt) ND
boprOp)'JbeUCDC X ND Nt) .Nt)
1.1.2.2. T Cl1achJoroethuC X Nt) ND ND
Tetral:hloroetbcDC X 8 ND ND
1.2.4- Tril:hlorobcucDc X ND ND ND
l,1.2-Trich1oroethuc "X HI) ND Nt)
Tril:hloroethaac X 8 ND Nt)
Vmyl CbJoric!e X ND Nt) ND
XytCDei (totaJ) X 8 ND ND
SEMI-VOLA11LES .
Bi5(2-chloroethyt)cthcr X ND Nt) ND
Bi5(2-ethy1hexyt)phtba1atc 8 X" 8 X
Di.D-bUtytpbtba1atc 8 X 8 X
Dicthytphthalate 8 X 8 X
.
DIOXINS,If'11MNS
PCDD fPCDf5 NA . X NA X
INORGAJ\1CS
ArseDic ND X ND X
Berytlium ND X ND X
'.
-------
00
TABLE 7
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN: FINAL SELECJ'JON UST
°
HIGGINS FARM
GROUND . SURFACE SURFACE
CHEMICAL ' WATER SOIL WA'IER SEDIME~'"
Lead . X . X
MerCW)' Nt> X ND' X
~: ,..
" ,,'
X . selected as I chemical of pallDtial CODc:ena.
~"D . Nor Derected.
8 . Detected, but Dot selected as I chemica! of palCDtW CIOIIc:cna.
.
NA . Nor AuJyzed., .
, ,
"
. . '\-
:;z
. - .' :"'":.'. .
-------
s
tAlU 8 .
SUMMARY OF COMPLETE EXPOSURE PAT'H\\'AYS
HIGGINS FARM
PotentlaUy Exposed Exposure Route. Medium . Pathway Selected Reason for Selection
Population and Exposure Point lor Eftluatlon! or Exclusion -
. .
Current Land Use
Residents . Inaestion of and dermal Ya Contaminated soD is in an
. contact with chemicals of area potentiaDy used by
potential concern in soil. resident&.
Residents Inaestion of. dermal con. Yes Residents use Jfound --ater
taCt with. and inhalation . for drin1cinJ. bathinJ. clean-
of chemicals of potential ina and other home uses.
concem in Jfound water.
Workers Inaation of and dermal Yes. - Contamin,ted soD is in an
contact with chemicals of . area potentia1Jy used by
potential .concem in lOil. workers.
Trespassers Inaestion of and dermal Yes Contaminated soD may be
contaCt with chemicals of encountered by uespassers.
potential concern in soD.
Trespassers .
Dermal contact with Yes Contaminated sediment
chemica1s of potential m~y be encountered by
concem in sedimenL trespasser:s-
Trespassers Inaestion of and dermal No No chemicals of potential
contact with chemicals of concem have been identi-
potential concern in lied in .urface ..ater.
-------
tAlLE ,
SUMMARY OF COMPLETE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
,
. .
. HIGGINS FARM
--'
. .'
PotentlaU". Exposed Exposure Route, MedIum Path".a). Selected Reason lor Selection
Population and Exposure Point lor Evaluation? or Exdusion
-
Future Land Use .
.
--
...
Residents In,estion of and dermal No While the lite could be
contact with chemicals of . - - developed in the future a5
potentiaJ concern in 1Oil. . residentiaJ area. the esti.
mated exposures would be
unlDceJy to exceed those
estimltt-: in the current
use scenario.
-
Residents Dermal contact with che- Yes A resident my have oppor.
micals of potential tunity to contact sediment
concern" in sediment. . durina recreationaJ activj.
. ties for a Ionaer duration
than i trespasser if the
lite were developed in th~
future u a residentiaJ area.
Consumers Inaestion of farm .. No While its plausible that the
products and produce. aite could be developed in
the future for livestock
and/or ajricuJruraJ produCt
production, it is unlikely
. that IU~ development
would occur.
-------
'DIU 10
SUMMARY OF amomc NONCAJtCINOOENIC 1lUAJU) INDEX ESTIMATES
JOGGINS FAD!
aw .
AdJu88d "WI)'
CDI for U)8 llaud IluaftS
Ch.micIJ ...~,' ...~ ~ Wn
cuuvrr LANt> USE
AI)OWCE~'" TU,SP ASSERS: ...~ or 81115 d8raa1-- wIIJIcb88f/'Ak .. 8DI1 -
~paioD "11(21d1y1h&l)'I)Ph&bl1- ~IE-ol . 110 2.aoE4 '...E-06
'iI&!I)'lphthlll1C . .Oo&E4 - - -
di-t!-blitylphWlII8 S.IOE-oI "O UIOE.oo '.8OE-ol
pct>t>afPCt>Fa II ..15&-12 - - -
ancNc U2E-06 110 'S.OOI. S.'7JE-oJ.
. t.eryUiua J.S2E-07 110 5.CIO!4 6."E~
-" ..nE~ - - -
8ercut)' UOE-ol . 110 J.a. '.00E-05 J.I6E~3
D8tma! IIOIUICI 'iIC24!1y1hasyl)p1d""'- ..nE-07 YES 2.GDi4 2.0&~
'icUl)'lphWlat8 2.'IE-07 - - -
'i-lI-butylph\hl1ll8 2.2'7!-07 YES 1.GCE.oD 2.2'7E-07
pct>t>afPCDFI 2."1-11 - - -
.,..me USI-06 . YES 2.-. 5.51E-03
INT)'UiUID s.m-07 YU 5.CIO!~ ' ."E-03
_d 5.ME-06 - - -
8lfm)' 2.1614 YES 6.001-06 S.~-03 1."71 E..()2
AI)OWCEJ\"T TWPASSW: Duaa18aD18C1 wIIJI..1~...1, ID _ir-
,
"iI(218.hylh.Z)'I)phd\l1ll8 5.S2!-07 YES 1.00!4 2.-~
dicUl)'lph\hl111C U9&-07 - - -
di-n-blltylphWlI1C '.5S!4 YES 1.001.00 J.55!4
PCDDafPCDFI i...I-l0 - - -
ancniC 1.551-06 \'I.S : 2,.01. '..a.(»)
kfyUiuID 5.I9E-07 YES S.OOI~ UME~
I8d 2.1I1~ - - :-
IDIrcut)' 6.2'E4 YES ..001-06 I.o&E~ 2. '73E~
TOT AL EXPOSURE HAZARJ) INDEX FO~ ADOlDCENT TUSPASSPS ..I2E~
..on.: ..ltD. for .,.1 upo8III' ..~...,. 8ft ...... .. .-.,&i8 . fIIJ88I:
am I AU . A.jItD
...." All. 1.0 rOt OtlaNC chcmkalI (cWu1t -->
0.' r.r &rI8iC (VIErA. ,II')
0.01 r.r kt711i1D tATlI>L ,Rt)
-------
%ABLE 10
SUMMAJtY OF CHIloNic NONCAJtCINOOEN1C H..UAJtDJH1)EX ESTIMAnS
I
I
I
IDOGINS pAJW
CDJ AdJu88d "WI)'
,for alD8 Huard Huard
a.8k&1 ...,...y) "'.." ~t ''''1
UJUWlT LAND USE ~.. ."
. ...
USmE""T ~ULTS: ...-- or- --..... wIm ..~'-,.....
""aD': ,iI(2~)'Jhu)'J)ptlt".''''. .."E~ NO 2._4 2.-~
'i-II1l1t)'lphdW- ..I1I~ 110 UIOE.oo ..111-07
PCDDalPCDF. 5."E-11 - -- -
arI8IUc ..sIE~ NO I.CIOE-o& 2.1914
MryUt1aID 1.s11~ NO '.CIOI4 1.021-0&
lead I."E-o& - -
.."'" '.211~ NO i.CIOE-oa 1.,.1-03 2.~E~
! aoasaa 'ilC2~)'1hcI)'I)ph1UJ818 2.151~ YU 2.CIOE-02 ' IAJE~ .
4di-ll111t)'1pl\lM1ata 2."1~ YIS I.CIDE.oo 2.M1-07
PCDDalPCDF. 1.26£-11 - - -
.. .... '.121~ YIS 2.4OE-oa 1.2&-03
.,w.a I."E~ YIS '.001-05 1.5114'
lead 1.tS1-05 - - -
8I8fCIJI7 ..1914 YES .._~ I.OJI-02 I.m~
l WmE""T ~UL TS: ...--. -- .... aDd .".,,,;,, .r ..,a-t. .. .......-
- ...... '~'2-cb1orOll!l,I)l&ll8r 5.'11~ -
Mu88 1."I~ - -
UloroMRl81 1."I~ NO 2.CIOE~ l.meOO
. . UlorofonD 2."1-0& 110 . 1.0014 2."14
a 1.2-4icbJ01~ - UIlI-03 NO '.CIOE-02 . I.20E4
1.1-4icbJOI~Pt~ ...'E-05 110 l.ool~1 ...31-0&
1.2-4ic:h1orOlCM88 ..8014
II 1.I-4icbJor--- 1.251-0& 110 '.ooE4 1..1-02
1.2-4icblor0G88 1.111-03 110. 2.00E4 '.~I-02
*'Propyl""'" ..291~ NO ..00E-02 1.G7E-03 .
1.1.2.2~4>rDl"'''.- 4.2JE~ -
. 1df8d1l01'08&hal8 '.'11-03 . 110 1.GOE4 '.'71E~1
1.2.4-uich10.ob .,- ..1&4 110 1.J01-03 1."1-02
l.l.2-tridllol ~ -,,- 1."1-02 NO ..00E4 '.151.00
IricblorC111d\8188 '.291-03 -
WI,I cb10rtM 4.291-01
811- (t.DtA1) 1.011-0& NO 2.OOEeOO 5AOE-05 1.0&1.01
lion --1ID,1er 81811 8IfOIIII' ..~ ... ...... r.r ~'..... u fIII88I:
am I All- MjU)
. .
'ft&ft AM. 1.0 Cor or'" cbcmfl"-'. (cIcruh wi.)
0.' r. an8ic (U_I.. ,..)
0.0118r "l1m- CA 1SI>L ,.
om r.r ...., CA1SI>L ,-)
. . : ..-..~-"",'~"-:'.........>...-- *,
-------
f
I
I
I
,
-.
I
I
I
.
1
--
%ULE 10
SUMMARY OF CHRONIC NONCAJtCINOGEN1C HAZAJU) INDEX ESTIMATES
IDOOINS'ARM
&It)
AdjuI8d Pa&hWl)'
CDJ lor IUD. Huard lIiMrd
.-....Jq1 "''''''1) MIOI1Idae _Ikr*rl Oua&i8nt luu
DcrIlllJ CODtact . ltil[2111Jora8dsyl)l&b8r 2.00I~ 8p
IIauDe ~A6E4 -
cJlJ01."- 2.00E-Q2 YES 2.ooE-02 1.001400
cllJoro(onD 2."E~ YES 1.00E-02 2ME"'03
1.21ichJorat--~ '.Ni~ YES '.ooE-02 1.10£4
I.J1idIJOfCIIdaut " ".3, 2.SJE-G6 YU . I.OOI~J" 2.SIE~
1.21ichJO""18iP"! ~.2JE4 - -
I.J1ichJOfOICh88 1.5SE~ YES '.0014 1.'7214
1 .21ichJorOllhea $.22E~ YU 2.ooE-02 2.6J£4
IIopr"P)'l IIcu8Dc J.NE~ YES ~.00I-02 t.ISE~
I. J .2.2-ucr.chJDrOIdIae ..5SE-GI -
lIr7achJor0ch88 S.J9E~ YES I.ooE-02 S."E4
1.2.'1ridIJorob8l 'M. J.24£~ YES I.JOE4 2..9E~J
I.J.2~orcIICMu '.6JE4 YES ~.00I4 1._.00
lrkhJor0ch88 1.5214
WiIIil chloride t.CD£~ - -
811- (IOIIJ) '.NE~ YU 2.001.00 ~.m~ 2.t2E.oo
IMa1I&ioD ltil(2-daJoro8CJsyl)l&b8r 2.2t£~ - - -
ku.-c 1.J1E-02 - , -
cJlJor' -.~ 1.26E-02 NO $.0014 2.521.00
cJlJoro(orm I.I.E~ - -
J.2-djchJor~ '.12£-0& NO '.OOE~ 1.00E~
J.J 1ichJorochaDe 1.77E~ NO I.OOI~J 1.77E~
1.21ichJorocbaDc 1."£4
1.I-ctichJor"" S.OJ£~ - -
1.21ichJoro8CIs88 '.5JE~ - -
8op"'P)'1 ...... I.'JE~ - -
1.1.2 .2-ucr.chJoroI&bu8 U,£~ - - -
tIU.cbJor08Ch... 1.09£4 -
1.2..-criehJoreI-9- . I.N£~ NO J.00I4 '..'714
I. J .2-crieh1or08Cbue 1.26E-02 - - -
lI'khJor0a.baa8 2.51£4 -
WiII)'1 chJoridc I.'IE~
811- (IOIIJ). ~.m~ NO '.101-02 S.02E~ 2.s.£.oo
TOTAL. EXPOSURE HAZAR!) INDEX FOR USJDENT ADULTS J.59E.oJ
"0'11 --lID. ,., *,..1 '..... ,.tfto87a III ........ ,.,....,.........
lID I AU . M,JaID
Yr'kn AU. 1.0 lor oraWc chemielJ. (dII.uIt ....)
0.1 ,., .n8c (USIP4. ....)
.0.01 f8r '-'7Ui- (ATmJ.. a.I)
'.1'2 ,., -1ArJ (A TlDJ.. I~
..
-------
"UBLE 10
.
SUMMARY Of CHRONIC NONCARCINOGENIC HAZAJU) INDEX ESTIMATES
HIGGINS FAD!
IUP
Adju88d . "wa)'
CDI for am- Haunt IIu&rd
Cb8aIiMJ ...,...., " ...~ QucI&i8at ...&
I.AMI) VI£
USIJ)£NT CHn.DUN: lDa....r.. da'8IJ .... .... ...a-1-..a
Wa(2-u)'UIa)'J)pId".'- ..st£-06 110 2.CID£4 2.m-Ol
.i....-bUl')'lphcM1lt8 1.19£-06 110 ..-.00 1.191-06
PCDDIIPCDFI 5.111-10 - - -
..-ic . '.2254 NO I.CID£-O& 2.07E~1
MryUiatlD Ul14 NO 5._4 2.1&4
IMd J.55E4 - - - -
. '.m-06 NO I.CIOa-O& 1.6&.4 2.2'IE~1
88RU1)'
~-- 'ia(2-u)'1hn)'1)phd11J818 5~1-06 YU 2.CID£4 2.621-01
di-e-bUl')'lphchl18l& ..JOE-06 YU 1.GO£.oo ..5OE..
PCDDa/PCDFa.."" 5.191-10 ."
- - -
8rIIIIic IMI4 YU .. 2AOE. '.CID£4
~Uiu& I.JOE.. YU 5.CID£4 '._4
_It l.tOE. - - -
8GCId)' 1...1.. YU ,..-oi l.tOE~1 J.I&~I
WIDI'-"! CHJl.t)UN: 111,-=. dcnDIJ -- .. illhaJlIiID of cMaJ-1. .. ..... ...
...... 'ilC2~oroG)'J)IIMr un. - - -
MuMC 1.1114 - - -
c1IJ~~.- '''114 NO 2.CID£4 1.721.00
cbJorof'OJ'III '.12£. NO 1.0014 '.7214
1.2~idIJorol-""- 2.55E4 110 '.CID£4 . 2.1114
l.l~idIJOfOICbuc 1.051001 NO I.CID£~1 1.0514
1.2-dichJorOlChlM 1.0914 - - -
1. J~ichJo'C18CM18 .2.'6£. NO '.CID£4 1.2914
1.2~idIJo'OIIth88 ....£4 NO 2.00E4 2.22E~1
IIopropyl MnI8a 1.011001 NO '.0014 2.11£4'
1.1.2,2ooC.1Crachl..u -hr- 1.00£001 - - -
l8I1achlorOldlenI 1.1214 NO I.CID£4 1.121.00
1.2..~ChJOfClt "',- 1.151001 NO 1.J014 1.15£4
l.l.2-uichJorOllhul '..3£4 NO ..0014 1.1&.01
tricblorClll!a8lc U914 - - --
YiII)'l cNoridI 1.011-03 - - -
zyiM. (1atIt) 2.55&-0& NO 2.00&..00 1.21&-0& 2..a.ol
IIOTZ. 8.M)a fir *...... ,.ha78 811 ......... fir l\ 11""- . ......
lID I AIS . MJJID
....... AIS. 1.0 ro~ oraank dlclD1c:ala (cWu1r --)
0.' I.,..-ic CUmA,I"')
0.01'" .rynhD (ATIDL IRI)
0.02"~(ATlDLII8) .
-------
'fAIL! 10
.
S\JMMA.J.Y OF amONlC NONCAJtCJNOGENlC H.UAJU> INDEX ESTIMATES
~ IDOOINS ,AJt)d
-mD
AdjuUS "wa)'
Cl)1 for U)8 .Huatd HUArd
ChclDicaJ ...,.,..,) ...~ ~. Was
I)a8I1 CGDI8Ct IIiI(2-cllJorOllhyl)1dacr J.56E4 - - -
IIcftZ8nC ' ."1~3 - - -
chlOf~ J.5'7E-42 YIS 2.001-42 ..,91.00
chloroform ..S5I-05 YES 1.001-42 2."1~3
1.2-dich1os ohllV- I.m-o& YES '.CIOE-42 U7E4
l.l-dich1orOl&haM ....£~ YES 1.GO£~1 ....£-05
1.2-dichl~ '.JA14 - - -
l.l-dich1OfC1f1hc118 2.m-05 YES ..000-oJ J.C8E-G3
1.2-dichl~ t.JOI-05' YES 2.001-42 ..65I-G3
iIopfopyl bcIa8II8 ' .031-05 YES ..GO£-42 1.'&4
1.1.2.2-ucrac11lorOllM88 1.G'7E~ - - -
uuadllorOl&h8M ..601-05 YES 1.00£-42 .._-OJ
1.2..-vich1orobcU 5.T7E~ YES 1.J014 ....14
1.1.2~0f0IIMM . 1.J6E-42 ns ..CIOE-G3 l.tOE.oo
IrichlOfCll&h88 2."14 - - -
Wlyl chloride 1.611-05 - - -
ayl81181 (uuS) I.m-o& YIS 2.00£.00 '.m-05 5.211.00
tnl..8l,.1AA lliaC2-c11J--)'I)1d18r 1...£-0& - - -
...... '.651-42 - - -
chlorob8a.- , .931-42 110 S.ooE-oJ 1.....01
ch1orofonD '.161-0& - - -
1.2~ieh1orotllllV". 2.m~3 110 ..00£-42 '.IOE~
l.l-dich1orOllhlM U2!.ot "0 I..-cn 1.I2I~3
I ,2-dichlorC111&h8D8 1.161-42 - - -
I.l-didllor--- J.16E-o& - - -
1.2-didllorOlDV- ..'MI-oJ - - -
,,"1')'1""" U.I-o& - - -
1.1.2.2-uuadllorOllhaD8 1.G'7E-o& - - -
Ulr8Chlof~ 1.95£-42 - - -
1.2.4-crichlor~ 1.231-0& 110 1.00£4' ..10E-42
1.1.2~h10f01&hU8 ' .931-42 - - -
trichlor-- 1.591-42 - - -
WI)'1 chloride . 1.001-oJ - - -
aylCD. (uuI) 2.12£-0& 110 '.60£.(12 1.16E-oJ 1.601.01
TOT JJ.. EXPOSUIE HAZAJl) INDEX 'Olt IESIDEMT CHlU)IEN ..631.01
lion,; ..JlDt .. *,..J upa8II'8 ..~IP III ......... fer Ii .y'- .1ID88E
alDIAII-MjIID
...... All - 1.0 for oraWe .~a1, (dcfuh --)
0.' .. ...-ic (U1IP4. ,.)
0.01" "I)'UiI8l (ATIDL IWI)
om.. "IS" (ATIDL 1-
-------
'USu 10
S\1MMAJlY OF CKRONiC NONCAaCINOOENJC HA%AIU> INDEx ESTIMATES
JOGGINS FAJt.M
Adj888d "WI)'
CD1 far aID- IIaard Huard
C...1IIic8J -~) .,..,.." QuCIti8IIt ....
UEMT J.ANt) USE
ADm.T WORKERS: ...... or.... -- -- -- ""'1881. II'"
. ....... .iI(2--)'1ha)'l)pbtHJ..- 2."£~ NO 2.0014 1A2E-05
.i8IIt)'lph&ba1al8 l.t6I~ - - -
di-tI1\11)'lphlb8l8 ..m~ NO UIO£..oo 1.5'7i~
PCDDa/PCDF. I.te-II -. - -
~ ..IOE~ NO 1._-eM l.sn-«
IIctyUiUID ~ . ". . ..J'7E~ NO I._-GJ 2.'M5-eM
I88d 2.05£-05 - !88 -
~ 'M14 NO I.CIOE-eM 2AD-eM 1.591-02
8OIII8Ct ."(2--yUsay1)pbtMI.- .I."£~ YU 2.--« I...
.i8IIt)'lph&ba181& '.891~ - - -
. di-e-b\ll)'lphUIIJ8I8 '.11£4 YIS ."..00 '.IS14
PCDD.IPCDF. 1.1&-11 - - -
8t8I8ic IA'7E~ US 2AOE-eM 2.2I£-GJ
-,uiuID ..al~ YES 1._-05 1.2&4
lead 2."'£~ - -.
88fCU1')' 1."14 YES 6.00£. I A'7E-03 ';OU-03
A1.IXPOSUU HAZARD INDEX POt ADm.T WOIXElS 2.291-02
IIO'T1: "aID. I., _nul ..,..... ....,. - ........ ,. at ....... e.a-.:
In)IAU.~
~" AU. 1.0 ror orawe cII.lII1c:a11 (1181''' -.>
0.' lor .nni, (USI!J'A. ,*)
0.01 lor .tyUilD (ATlDI.. ,ell)
0.02 rCII"~ (A1'IDI. ,tit)
. .
.
,
-------
. 'UlSLE 10
SUMMAP.Y Of CHRONIC NONCARCINOGENIC HAZ.AJU) INDEX ESTIMATES
IDOOINS fARM
A1IJuII8d P8&hWl~'
CDI for aID. Huard Huard
CIIClD1ca2 ..,....)') Ab ..,....)') ~ Wn
LAm> USE
U)EN'f AJ)OWC:ENTS: Der- CaDIIcI wIdI..,-'a. 1Id--
IIiI(211hyJhnyl>r......1- 5.m~ YES 2.00E4 2.16E~
di-ll-tlll1)'lphU1a1a&8 ......WtA YES 1.001.00 1.5514
PC:DDalPC:DFI 1.1&1-10 - -
anaiC 1.5514 YES . 2". '..a-G
tlcf)'UiulII 5.191~ YES S._~ UMI-02
_d 2.1I1~ '- - -
88fCury 6.2A14 YES '.0014 UMI-02 2.'731-02
AI. ~DmONA1- EXPOSURE H-UARD INDEX FoR USIDENT ADOlDCDITi
2.'7J1-02
110ft: "lID. fir *1811 IJpOIIIft ..~ III IIJIIIII' r.r ....... . 1IU8iII:
alDlAISaAIJIID
...." AU a 1.0 for miMic chaIII.ica1a (dlrault watuc)
0.' for ItIIIIIC (USEPA. I",)
0.01 ror ..,,111111 (A TlDL .111)
-------
.
tAIL! 11
. IUMMAIlY Of CANeD IUSI. ESTIMATES
".
IDOOINS PAlM
1;111
AIJuI88d CM.,'-'- T-
CDI .0 for ... Ip8CInc "WI)"
0e1DJclJ .../krCIJ) .../krCIJ)oo1 8iIk bk
CUUENT J.ANI) USE
wm!""T An\1L TS: Iqlltioa or ud -- .... willi ...." III"
...... '1IC21&J1)'1hayt)phda11818 2.051-07 NO IAOE4 2.1114.
PCDD,fPCDF, 2.351-11 NO 1.5014 J.5JI-06
anuic 2.12£-06 NO 1.IOE.oo 5.CIII-06
118ryUiulD .a._-07 NO C.JOI.oo 2. '7IE-06 1.1"1-05
DvaalIODI8Ct '1IC21&J1y1hn)'J)ph,i...I,.. 1.221-07 YES IAOI4 1.'114
PCDDtIPCDF. I AOE~II YES 1.5014 2.101-06
arI8Aic . J.35I-07 YES 2.25E.oo ''''1-07
118ryUiUID '.1114 YES C.JCE4 J.--05 3.591-05
IESrDE"-"T An\1LTS: IqIltiCIIL. -- .... ... .1...1- or .aJ-1- III pcIIIIIo1I-
.
1q8l&ion """ IA'7E-02 NO .2._-02 C.26I~
"..C2~oro8dI)'t)llMr 2.0151-05 NO . 1.101.00 2."101-05
cJ\Jorororm l.m~ NO '.10£4 ' AoII-07
I. J ~idlJorOlChlDc 1.901-05 - - -
1.2~ichJorOlCMM 1.t'7E4 NO '.1014 I.'J'I~
I. 1 ~ichJorOl8.h8D8 5.J6E-05 NO '.001-01 J.22£-05
....1.2~chJor-".- 1.1.1-05 NO 2.001-01 J.62I-06
..,..chJor0l&h81 J.Jll-oJ NO 5.1014 I..I~
I. J .2~orOldlu8 1.J5E4 NO 5."1014 '."IOI~
tr'kblorOldl88 2.6914 NO 1.1014 2.HE-05
viA)'1 cbl0rid8 I."'I~ NO 1.tOI.oo J.5OE~ 1.991-03
liOn. --ltD. ,., *1'ID8! ...-n ,.\bWqI8ft ..... ,. ......- u fID8R:
Ift)IAU.~
~" AU. 1.0'. 8f1uic .....b (*fa""")
0.' fir an8ic (UIIPA. I"')
0.01 fer ""'u,- (AnDL 1~
-------
.
'fABLE 11
- 'SUMMARY Of CANCEIlIUSK ESTIMATES
. JOGGINS fARM
~UJ
AdJult8d e..a'-'- TCICI1
CDI ,. If- IpICifIC PallWI)'
CII.&icIJ _lkI-*y) .. _~~I &ilk Risk
Dcnraa1 COIIS8d .... 1.'114 YES 2.1OI~ S.5o&I~
"ilC2~orOldlyI)ldMlr~~.51E-ffI YES 1.101.00 '..SI-ffl
c.h10r0form . 1.Q5I~ YES '.1014 IAII'"
1.I~ichlorochuc I.OIE~ - - -
1.2~ichlorOllhu. 1.IIE-oS YES ';IOI~ 1.651-0&
I. 1 ~ichJoroccMae I.66E~ YES '.ooE-01 ..ool~ .
1.1.2.2-uuachlOfClldlaD8 ..081-01 YES 2.001-01 1.1114
"'lchlor08dl.. 2.'11-05 YES 5.101-02 ...1&-06
1.1.2-vichlOJ'Ol&h8ll8 J.26I-oS YES 5.701~ ..161-0&
trichlorochlDC 1.521-0& YES I.IOE~ '.I7I~
. ¥iII)'1 cIIl0rid8 J.I1E-06 YES 1.901.00 '.JSE~ ...27EooOI
1aMIf';- ""'" ..8114 110 2.tOE~ 1.'11-0&
tliaC2-cllJOfOICII)'I)IdMIr '.101-06 NO 1.151.00 I.1JI~ .
chloroform ..171-05 NO 1.5OE-02 ..I.I~
1.I~ichlorochuc '.591~ - - -
1.2~ichiorOllhu8 '.'91-0& 110 '.IOE~ '.I'I~
1. J~lchJorocUlcnc 2.1SE~ 1\10 I.20E.oo 2.SIE~
I. J .2.2-UUlchJorOllhua '.25E-06 .110 2.00E~1 1..,£-06
&culchlorocth&ne I.m-os NO 1.1014 2.JlI~
1 .1.2""U"ich10r0ch8D8 5.J9E-03 NO 5.701-02 J.m-o&
trichlor08dlea. 1.011-03 NO 1.101~ 1.141-05
.)'1 cblorida '.JSI~ NO 2.901-01 2.IJE~ '.J4EooOI
TOTAL EXPOSURE RISK u.smENT ADU1.TS J.08I-oS
lion: a.JID. 'or "nuT 1I;108l" ,.1bw8y. 1ft "jIIII8I,.,..........1IIIRI:
. am I All . A'jaID
""'n AU. 1.0'or orauic c".icab ("".""')
0.' 'or .-.ac (UIEPA. I"') .
0.01 'or KrrllilD (ATlDRe ..)
O.02'or .In.,. (AnDRe ...,>
-------
. . .
DlLE 11
.
--
SUMMARY OF CANCER RISK ESTIMATES
- - -'
-_.-
.
JOGGINS PAItM _.
....."
...... eaw...... TCMJ
" CDI -far ..e .-anc "wa"
- CMaIca1 ' ..."'~ ."""'''1 bk ..
----. ..
LAND USE .
. ., ."
wmEh"T CHIU»UN: 18'_011 or_-- 8D11&8Ct'" cM.,Mi. II"
...... 'ilC21&hylha)'J)pItda118&8 ..s.I~ NO 1.-4 '.1614
PCDDaIPCDF. '.laE-n .....: NO 1.5OE4 '.7714
8rI8ftic ~- '.2ZE4 NO 1._.00 1.12E~
~ IA3I4 NO ..IOE.oo 1.1514 2.51E-05
ft.._-, 80IItact 'ifC21U:~ JIayI)phthaJaa S.2lI~ US 1.-4 '.JoI14
PCDDalPCDF. 5."1-11 YU 1.5OE4 '."14.
8I'I8IUc 1."E4 YU 2.251.00 J.2I14
MrfUiua J.JOI~ YU ..-. IAa~ I.s.E~
.
wmENT CHJU)UN: Ia.ur.iae. .,.., --- ud 8hlJ8tiae or ...... II ..... --
.
1IeIII8M. '.nI4 NO 2.tOI4 2.J5I~
'if~-cbJorCI8CII"I)IIMr . I.35E4 NO 1.105.00 1 AtE"os
chIorororlll '.7214 NO '.1014 ..IO£~
1.11ichJDr08Ch&D8 1.00E-05 - - -
1.21ichJorochlM UltE4 NO '.1014 t.m4
1,I1ichJoroICIa88 2.HE4 NO '.OOE~I 1.1IE4
1.1.2.2-ceachJOf.= -'10.- J.CIOE-05 NO 2.00E~1 2.ooE4
lItrachJorC18C118D8 U2E4 NO 5.10E-G2 ..2IE-05
1.I,2-trichJoroIdue '.'3E4 NO '.'7014 ..2IE~
trichlorochlaa 1."E4 . NO. 1.101-02 1."E-05
...,,1 aJoriIIc l.oll~ NO 1._.00 I.m~ J.CltE~3
J
I
lion.: ~Ift). fer .null~ ,aSh-I,. - alj\11181 ,.. a....,.. ultllt8a:
1ft) I AU . M,iaID
WMIt AU. U fer 8flaaic doI8lct18 (*,81111 .....,
0.' 'If ....c (USDA. I"')
0.01 fer "I')'UiID (ATIDL I.)
0.0'2 ,. -~., (ATIDL I.,
,
-------
.
1'ABLE 11
SUMMARY OF CANCER RISK ESTIMATES
.
. HJGOINS 'AIM
~I
AdjuII8d ra..18MaJ- TcuJ
CDI - IF- lp8CiI'ac "way
Ch8D1ica1 ..,~,) .. ...~,)-J &ilk RiIk
DaJIIIJ CCIIIIKt ...... '."I~ YII 2.101-02 2.JOE~
llilC2-chJorGICh)'J)IIMr J.$6E~ YES 1.101.00 J.m~
chJorofOtlD 4.JSI~ YII '.10£4 2.6514
1.I-dichlorocMae 4."1~ - - -
1 .2-diehJorochuc '.S.I~ YES '.10£-02 '.I6E~
I,I-diehlor--- 2.m~ YES '.ODI~J 1.161-06
1.1.2.2-t8lraChJMOICIIu8 1.07E-CII YES . 2.00&~J 2.141-09
"raehJoroc&h8nl '.60I~ YES 5.101-02 4.tOE~
I. J .2-tridIJoroQue 1 .J61~3 YES 5.'701-02. '.'JI~
IrichlorD8&.b8D8 2.711~ YES 1.101-02 2.tU~
WiII)'1 chJOJide 1.611~ YES 1.101.00 J.G6E~ 1.7IE~
"'''tI.Lion Mnzuc 1.6514 NO 2.1014 2.JII~
llilC2-chJor08&hyI)lCla8r 1 "'I~ NO 1.15£.00 1.16I~
chIorofonD '.I6E~ NO 1.501-02 ,..£~
I.J-diebJorochua 1.12E~ - - -
1.2-didIJorochanc 1.1614 NO '.101-02 1.GC51~
J. J -dichlorCllChGlI J.161~ NO I.20E4 J."E~
I. J .2.2-ca:lehJorCIIChw J.07E-05 NO 2.00E~1 2.."Eoo06
leUachJorochaae i.'$14 NO 1.10£4 J.5JI-06
J .1.2~ehJorOCbaD& '.'3E~3 NO 5.'701~ 4.J2E~
trich!orD8&h8u 1.J914 . NO 1.7OE-02 2._-05
¥iII)'1 chJoridc I.OIE~ NO 2.1OE~1 J.IJ£~ '.J3E~
TOTAL EXPOSURE RJSK FOR USIDEHT CllJU)IEN 2.31£-03
FUn1I.E LANJ) USI
WIDINT AI>OWC:ENTS: DcrmaJ COGtacI ... eb8mic:aJ.1D 88d-- .
llilC21d1)'lhczyI)phtllaJala 4.5614 YES 1.401-<12 6.311-10
- PCDI>aJPCI>F. l.sa£-II YES 1.501405 2.J7E~
.....ue l.nl~ YES 2.25£.00 2."I~
IlayUiua 4.UE4 YII 4"4 1.'1£-05 ~I'I~
IToTAL ADDmONAL EXPOSURE JJSJC FOR USIDEHT ADOlaCENTI 2.1'E~
IIorL a.an>. .. ""'1 ....,. ..!hi,. - ..... ,. ...... .II1I88I:
am I All . AIJIID
........ All. I.O'GI' 8Ip8Jc d8ID.Icab (1IInIt --)
O."fIr In8ic (UIEPA. I")
0.01 'fit krfUiID (4 TSDI. 1111)
-------
tAlLE 11
SUMMARY OF CANCER RISK ESTIMATES
' IDOOINS fARM
.. .. . ~, i i . ~ ':" . .... .,:
"1\ ~, ..
Adjull8d ,.....-~ TOIIJ
CDI lor IF- Ip8CUic "WIY
Clilmic8J CIIII'r-'" CIIII'r"',,)a1 aut Risk
,
LANI> USE
.
AZ:>ULT WOIUCEJtS: ...-- ohal cI8r8Il-. wIIJI""'_I_'. ...a .
...... .. 'k~~)'~~~'~~~ 1.011-07 NO 1 AOE..Q2 1A114
. PCI>J).IPCI>F. 6.991-12 NO UOI.05 1.05I~
III8IUc I."I~ NO 1.101.00 2.tSI~
M1yUiuID ..191~ NO ..JOE4 2.10E~ '.IOE~
l>craaJ 8II8&ICI 'ia(2~)'1hu)'J)ph'" 1.0214 YES IAOI..Q2 '.'JE-IO
PCI>DaIPCJ)FI ..1&-12 YIS 1.5OE.os I.2AI-07
8n8aic ...t51~ YES 2.251.00 ..J9I~
M1yUiua 5.12E4 YES ..JOE4 2.S014 2.1114
TOTAL D:POSUU IUSK POa ADULT WOItDU J.22E~
t
"om. ..am. fer ...., ..,...,. ..~ 811 ...., fer .....- II 1IIIIwa: .
II%) I All . MJIID
...... All- 1.0'" ..aic ....1&118 <*,1811""')
0.' ,., ....c tUIIPA. I")
0.01'" k'f1li8 CATiDR. I..)
0.02'" _ft~ CATIDR. ."')
-------
. '.
. 'fABLE 11
SUMMAJlY OF CANCEl RISK ESTIMATES
JOGGINS PAlM
g)l
Mju8Id ~"""'-. ToW
CD! .. IF- Ip8CiI'IC Padlwa)'-
ChaaicaJ -~) _"".~I bit bit
~UUEh" LAND USE .
_-----...-~
ADOLESCENT TUSP ASSERS: ID.... of aDd d8r8l&l -..ct willi ~lDIc8Jf I8IOIJ
'iI(21d1)'lh81)'J)pIotIo.I... 2.9SE4 NO IAOE4 ..13E-1I
PCDDalPCDF. .2.03£-13 NO 1.50E.05 . J.D5E4
8II8IUc 4.7IE-ol NO 1.8OE.oo '.1014
MryUiulD U2E4 NO 4.301.00 6.1114 1.71£-0'7
~81&1 8OJI&ICI l»ilC21d1)'lh81)'J)pJ1tha1at8 1.'&4 YES I.4OE4 2._-10
PCDD6IPCDF. 1.22£-12 YES I.5OE.05 I.'J&~
8118Aic 5.1114 YES 2.25&.00 I.2IE~
'-ryUiUID 1.70E4 YES 4.-4 '.311-06 1.62E-06
ADOLUCEJ\"T TRESPASSEU; Dar8l&l-.&aa wIIh cIwIaic8I.. -""1 .
bil(2-cJ1y1h'I)'J)p~1tt 2.2114 YES 1.401-02 3.1'1-10
PCDDi/PCDF. 1.9OE-12 YES 1.50E.05 1.1,&-06
&rIaUe 6.61&-01 YES 2.251.00 104'1-0'7
~UiUID 2.2214 YU 4.1014 t.5Sl-06 1.09E~
1r0T A1. EXPOSUR.E IJSK FOR ADOL.E.SCENT 1USPASSEItS U'7E~
110ft. "-atr>t fer ....r ...,.,. ..lb.,. 11114""" "II~ u f8III8a:
1m I AU . .ujatD
...." AIS. U'er 8rllllic Uaalcala (.,.111 will)
0.' ,., &P8I8ic (US!PA. I"')
0.01 ,., "1)'11i1D (ATIZ)a. 1-)
-------
'UBLE 12
ALTERNATIVE I com Pall 1 or 1
. .:..-''''.'''. . '.' . ~; ~ ~:::;:~"::: :': ;~>:n~::~::\}'::.': "':i":::.;:;~F;!:;. ::.: .: ':. ";.~::'~.:::.. '::~>-:.: ,\:':~~'.:"!:::~:\(. I
CAPITAL COSTS '. : ':.~~i:f:Y:~'~::' ' . 5 ()
.'
.. ," .". N
OPERATION AND'MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS .' '. ""':..~"'...:' :.:::~: /::.~.::::~:~.; :.:::~.~.~.~~~:;:/~?~:~:' ..
.. :
'. .;.:....
Labor @ S2S1hr 2,000
Ground water monitorinl~ Ana1ytjcaJ (32 samples @ 51,BOO/sampJe for 57,600
TCUfAL)
SUBTOTAL 59,600
CONTINGENCY (20%) 11,900
O&M SUBTOT.AL 71,500
..
PRESENT WORTH O&M COSTS (30 YEARS AT 5%) 1,099,100
TOTAL ~~~~~T}ivA1f:;;'3{"';:;!.~;;t;~:'~;;:';~;~~~;' ;1,099,100
-------
tABLE 13
SENSITM1Y ANALYSIS OF 0 II M COSTS FOR
ALTERNATIVES 1-3 -
Present WorIb 0 a M CGlts
Treatment TIme Fnme Allenaadve 1 AIIematM 2 AIIemaiM 3
Annuli 0 " M Casu S '1.500' S 262.100 S ".000
5 Years S 309.500 S 1.1~.600. S 1.662.JOO
10 Years S 552.100 S 2.023.900 S 2.965.200
15 Years """"". 5' '742.200 S 2.'720.600 S 3.985.900
20 Years S 891.000 S 3.26UOO S 4.'785AOO
25 Years S UJ07.'700 S 3.694.000 S 5."1~loo
30 Years S 1.099.100 S 4.029.000 S 5302.800
Note:
5~. discount rite usumed (or all present won!! calculations.
-------
Table ,+
ALTERNATIVE 2 CO~'TS
..
';."":::':)'}:', ....., .', ,.: ::':;'::::U:':,,:'
..
"CAPITAL COSTS
..
'..
, ,
..'
Ground Water Extraction
Extraction SyStem Monitorin2 Wells (3)
Treatment SyStem Buildin2
Eaualization
Aeration
9'emical Precipitation, Floccu~tion, Oarification, and Flltration
dncludes chemical feed svstems I
IntermediatelFiiJal DH Adiustment
Ion Exchan2e
Discharre to Surface Water
SUBTOTAL'
SITE WORK (20%)
ELECI"RICAL I&C AND MECHANICAL ~O%Y"
SUBTOTAL
T.ransnoration and disoosal of RI and naSI removal wastes
-
-
- ..,
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (20%)
SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (20%)
OVERHEAD & PROFITS (15%) .
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
,.., " ..'.. ' ... , " ',',' ""',':', ,:':: "..,'
"OPERATION AND MAiNTENANcE (O&~hCOSTs;>: . '
Labor ((ci) S25tbour)
System inOuent/effiuent monitoring (24 samples @ SI,8OO/sample for
TCUfAL)
Extraction System Monitoring (12 samples @ SI,8OO/sample for
TcurAL) ,
Power (@ SO.101k W-hr)
.
.".., . .
. . . . . .. . ... . . . . .
,..." .. .. ........ ..........
...... ... .... ........... .. ...
.. ..... ..... ".". . . ..................
'.",,",',',""..."'.",".",",',"..,"..".....'.'.'.'.'..,",',",.'."," ',',.,"..
.. .... ...".............. ...............
.. ... ..''''""", ..... ...... ....................",
-.... ....... .......... ......,..... .......
................. ........ .......... .. ....'...
". 'P"'" . '.... n.' ......, ....,
""""" .,.....,...... ...,.. . ... .
... .....,.... ..... ....... .......
. . . ... ,. , . .... , .
Chemicals
Resin disDosal and reDlacement
Metal hydroxide sludee disnosal
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (20%)
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M
PRESENT WORTIi O&M COSTS (30 YEARS AT 5%
,q" '.TOT~ PRESENT WORTIfy'ALuE(::':\;::: ',::,.::: ,.,.
.., ,(Capital and O&M Costs) , ",' ""'. ':::.:::':'<,<, '".' < ,
Pa2e 1 or!
.r'," 0.
S137,000
45.000
50,000
7.000
49,000
98,000
16.000
72.000
50.000
524.000
104 800
157.200
786,000
87200
873.200
174600
1,047 800
209.600
157.200
1 414600
':(:(,.,/.,'""
52.000
43,200
21,600
40.000
13.000
25.000
23 600
218.400
43 700
262.100
4029.000
.. .... " .
/-::' ;.,:,: :;:::$5,443,600
-------
Table '8'
ALTERNATIVE 3 COSTS
"
, ,
,::.,:,'(F: ::..." " ". ",:,i::.,
, tAPrr AI.. COSTS ,
..,
.. ,
Ground Water Extraction
Extraction SYStem Monitorinl! Wells (3)
Treatment System Duildin!!
Eaua liza tion
S365.300
45.000
50.000
14.000
58.000
150,000
25,000
175000
133,000
1 015.300
203.100
304 600
1,523,000
87.200
1,610,200
322.000
1.932.200
386.400
289.800
2.608.400
,.., """:.'.:,, :
,": ::/ ':::',',':":",','
52.000
43,200
21,600
80.000
26.000
50.000
47200
Aeration
Chemical Precipitation, Flocculation, Clarification, and Faltration
(includes chemical feed SYStems)
IntermediatelFinal oH Adiustment
Ion Exchanl!e
Discharre to Surface Water
SUBTOTAL
SrrE WORK (20%)
ELECIRICAL. I&C. AND MECHANICAL (30%)
SUBTOTAL
Trans Donation and disoosal of RI and oast removal wastes
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (20%)
SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION (20%)
OVERHEAD & PROFITS (15%)
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
"'OPERATION :AND'MAlNTENANCE (O&M)' COSTs:~::,:.:,:::.:.:;..;:}: ::,
Labor ((ij) S25lhour)
System influent/effluent monitoring (24 samples @ SI,8OO/sample for
TCUTAL) ,
Extraction System Monitoring (12 samples @ Sl,800/sample for
TCLJrAL)
Power (@) SO.101k Wehr)
Chemicals
Resin disoosal and reolacement
Metal hvdroxide slud2e disDosal
SUBTOTAL 320,000
CONTINGENCY (20%) 64 000
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M 384.000
PRESENT WORTH O&M COSTS (30 YEARS AT 5%) 5902.800
"", ,:'TOTAiPREsENTWORTH~AT" ,,':' ",> ',::::::::\:::::/{(::t:.::""Ss511,200
-------
Table 16
CBEMICAI,SPECIFlC AltARs Ii: TDCs
FOR REMEDIATION OF GROUND WATER
Maximum Fl'lqueDtJ NJ GWQ NJ N.. J.fteJ Federal Federal Selected
Coacentration of Crit.rIa. Proposed MCLc MCL' MCLG' Remedial
Compound Deteded Detiction U&III) Clianup U&I/I) W/J) U&III) Requirement
<1&811) Standards~ <1&811)
<1&8/1) (AltAR) (AltAR) (ARAR/
(AltAR) (TBC) TBC)8
VolatUe Orpnlti
Acctolle 5.2 2/2 - '700 - - - - -
Benzene 1,200.0 U/22 - 1 - S 0 1
Bromobenzene 1.4 4/22 - - - - - -
CaJboa Disulfide 2.1 1/1 - - - - - -
CaJbon Tetrachloride 3.3 1/22 - 2 ::::ii::i:iif:::)i::::::':::::::::::::::: 5 0 2
Cllorobenzene 1,100.0 14/22 - 5 ;::i::i:::::::::::.':~::::::::;::::i:::::ili. 100 100 4
Clloroform 33.0 3/22 - 6 - ::::i::':::'::::~::::::::::::::' - 100
2-Cllorotoluene 3.5 1/22 - - - - - -
4-CllorDtoluene 2.9 2/22 - - - - - -
[[[
di-1,2-Dichloroethene 76.0 10/22 - 10 :::JrirlH:::r:,:::{{ '70 '70 10
1,I-Dichloroethane 3.0 8/22 - '70 - - - -
I,2-Dichloroethane 320.0 8/22 - 2 .:::::::::::::i:i:::::::i.::i:::::::::::::::::i:: 5 0 2
..,".....,"...........,',",...
l,l-Dichloroethene 10.0 7/22 - 2 ::::::::;::::::::::::::1::::'::::::::::::::::::. 7 7 2
;.;.:.;.:.:.;.:.:.;.;.:.:.;.:.:-:.;.;.;.;.;.
1,2-Dichloropropane 0.56 1/22 - 1 - I:'::::::':::::::j,':::'::::::::::"::: 0 5
1,l-Dichloropropene 4.3 1/22 - - - - - -
Ethylbenzene 1.0 2/22 - '700 - '700 700
Trans-l,2-Dichloroethene 13.0 6/22 - 100 100 100 10
1,1,2,2- Tetrachloroethane 7.5 7/22 - 2 - - - -
Tetrachloroethene 270.0 18/22 - 1 5 0 1
,,",",.,'.",',',',",",",",'.,',",,",',
Toluene 1.9 2/22 - 1,000 - ::::::::::'::'~l~.:::'::::' 1,000 1.000
1.1.1,2- Tetrat'loroethane 1.4 1/22 - 10 - - - -
1.1,1- Trichloroethane 4.2 4/22 - 30 200 " 26
1.1,2- Trichloroethane 1.100.0 8/22 - 3 - 5 3
Trichloroethene 220.0 16/22 - 1 5 0 1
Trichloronuoromethane 3.8 1/22 - - - - - -
VinYl Clloride 86.0 3/22 - 2 2 0 2
-------
Table 16
CBEMICAL-SPECmC ARARs II TBCs
FOR REMEDIATION OF GROUND WATER
-
MaxImum FncpDt)' NJ GWQ NJ New Jerwy Feden! Fedenl Selected
eoll£8ntntion 01 Criteria- Proposed MCLe MCL. MCW. Remedial
c-poand ° Detected Detection CI£aII) Cleanup <1&1/1) <1&1/1) <1£111) Requirement
<1&&11) Slandards' <1&&11)
CI£aII) (ARAR) (ARAR) (ARAR!
(ARAR) (TBC) TBC)8
SemlvolatUe Orpnic:s
Bis(2
-------
. Compound
Table 16
CBEMICAL-SPECInC AIWb II TBCs. .
FOR REMEDIATION OF GROUND WATER
MuImam FftQ1IelltJ NJ GWQ NJ New JelWJ Federal Federal Selected
Coanntration .or Criterill8 Proposed MCLc MCL' MCLG' Remedial
Detected Detection (JIa/I) Clunup
-------
Table 17
CHEMIc.u..spECInC ARARs II DCa
FOR DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WAnR
Maximum Maximum NJ ' NJPDES" FAWQC' Method Anti-
Concentration Concentration SWQ8 CPilI) C/l&/l) Detection Degradation
Detected in Detected in C/l&/l) (ARAR) Limit" GoaJ8
Compound Ground Water Surface Water ('me) C/l&/l) (Il&f1)
C/l&/l) (Il&f1) (MDL)
Aquatic:' PotableS
(ARAR) (ARAR)
VoiatUe OrpaJcs
Acetone 5.2 - - - - - 1.0 NO {I.O)
Beazene 1,200.0 - - 5,300 - 1.2 1.0 NO (1.0)
Bromobenzene 1.4 - - - - - 1.0 NO (1.0)
Carbon Disulfide" 2.1 5.0 - - - - 1.0 5.0
Carbon Tetnc:hloride 3.3 1.4 - 35,200 - 0.25 1.0 lA
Chlorobenzene 1,100.0 - - 2SO 488 680.0 1.0 NO (1.0)
Qlorolorm 33.0 -" - 28,900 - 5.7 1.0 NO .(1.0)
2-Ctlorotoluene 3.5 - - - - - 1.0 . NO (1.0)
4-Qlorotoluene 2.S - - - - - 1.0 NO (1.0)
Cis-1,2-Dic:hloroelhene 76.0 - - 11,600 - - 1.0 NO (1.0)
l,l-Dic:bloroethane 3.0 - - - - - 1.0 NO (1.0)
I,2-Didt1oroethane 320.0 - - 20,000 - G.38 1.0 ND (1.0)
l,l-Dic:h10r0ethene 10.0 - - 11,600 0.057 1.0 NO (1.0)
l,2-Dic:hloropropane 0.56 - - 5,700 - 0.52 1.0 NO (1.0)
l,l-Dic:bloropropene 4.3 - - 244 87 - 1.0 NO (1.0)
Ethylbenzene 1.0 - - 32,000 1,400 3,100.0 1.0 NO (1.0)
Tnns-1,2-Dic:hloroethene 13.0 - - 11,600 - 700.0 1.0 " NO (1.0)
1,1,2,2- Tetrachloroet hane 7.5 - - 2,400 - 0.17 1.0 NO (1.0)
Tetnc:hJoroethene 270.0 - - 840 - 0.8 1.0 NO (1.0)
Toluene 1.9 1.3 - 17,soo 14,300 6,800.0 1.0 1.3
1,1,1,2- Tetnchloroethane 1.4 - - 9,320 - - 1.0 NO (1.0)
l,l,l-Trichloroethane 4.2 - - 18,000 18,400 3,100.0 1.0 NO (1.0)
1.1,2- Tric:hloroethane 1,100.0 - - 9,400 - 0.6 1.0 NO (1.0)
TrichJoroelhene 220.0 - - 45,000 - 2.7 1.0 NO (1.0)
Trichloronuoromethane 3.8 - - 11,000 - - 1.0 NO (1.0)
Vinyl chloride 86.0 - - - -" 2.0 1.0 NO (1.0)
Xylenu (total) 13.8 - - - - - 1.0 NO (1.0)
StmJvolatUt Orpnic:s
Bis(~loroelhyl)elher 2.0 - - - - 0.031 5.0 NO (5.0)
"Bis(2-ethylhexyl)ph thalale 10.0 - - 3 - 1.8 5.0 NO (5.0)
2-Chlorophenol 6.0 - - 4,380 - - 5.0 NO (5.0)
-------
Table 17
CHEMICAL-SPECU1C ARAR.s II TBCa
FOR DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WATER
Maximum Maximum NJ NJPD£Sb FAWQC" Method Anti-
Concentration . Concentration SWOO <1&&11) (I&&/l) Detection Depadation
Detected ill DCtected ill <1&&11) (ARAR) Limitd Goal"
Compound Ground Water Sunace Water (TBC) <1&&11) <1&&11)
<1&&/1) <1&&11) (MDL)
Aquatic' Potable'
(ARAR) (ARAR)
1,2-Dic:hJorobenzene 48.0 - - 763 400 2.'700.0 10.0 ND (10.0)
I,3-Dic:hJorobenzene 5.0 - - 763 400 400.0 10.0 lIo'D (10.0)
1,4-Dic:hJorobenzene 20.0 - - 763 400 400.0 10.0 ND (10.0)
Di-n-butylphthalate 0.9 - - 3 34,000 - 5.0 ND (5.0)
Di-lHICtyIphthalate ND 1.0 - 3 - - 5.0 ND (5.0)
Diethyl phthalate 1.0 42.0 - 3 350,000 23,000.0 5.0 42.0
Hexac:hlorobutadiene 5.3 - - 9.3 - 0.44 1.0 ND (1.0)
Isopropylbcnzene 4.6 - - - - - 1.0 ND (1.0)
Naphthalene 0.38 - - 620 - - 1.0 ND (1.0)
N-Dutylbenzene 5.0 - - - - - 1.0 ND (1.0)
N-Propy1benzene 4.5 - - - - - 1.0 ND (1.0)
P-Isopropyltoluene 5.0 - - - - - 1.0 ND (1.0)
Phenol 9.0 - - 2,S6O 3,SOO - 5.0 ND (5.0)
Sec:-Dutylbeazene 4.9 - - - - - 1.0 ND (1.0)
Tert-Dutylbenzene 4.9 - - - - - 1.0 ND (1.0)
. 1,2,3- Tric:hJorobenzene 1.4 - - 2SO - - 1.0 ND (1.0)
1,2,4- Tric:hJorobenzene 1.7 - - 2SO - - . 10.0 ND (10.0)
1,2.4- Timethylbenzene 3.2 - - - - - 1.0 ND (1.0)
1,3,5- Trimethy/benzene 3.9' - - - - - 1.0 ND (1.0)
Inora1nlt Compounds
Aluminum 304,000.0 2,310.0 - - - 87.oJU 100.0 2,310.0
Antimony 28.5 - - 1.600 146 14.0 5.0 ND (5.0)
Barium 1.890.0 27.5 1,000 - - - 20.0 27.5
Beryllium 25.7 - - 5.3 - 0.0077 1.0 ND (1.0)
Cadmium 4.1 - 10 0.012 10 0.2Si 1.0 ND (1.0)
Chromium 403.0 - SO 0.29 SO 11.0 10.0 ND (10.0)
Cobalt 826.0 5.2 - - - - 10.0 ND (10.0)
Copper 8.7SO.0 6.4 - 5.6 - 2.32i 10.0 ND (10.0)
Iron 433.000.0 4,950 - - - 300.0" 100.0 4.950
Lead 81.4 12.0 SO .75 SO 0.28i 0.3 12.0
Magnesium 27,200.0 3.780 - - - - 5.000.0 ND (5.000.0)
Manganese 24,800.0 325 - - - SO.o" 10.0 325
-------
Table 17
CHEMICAL-SPECInC AltARs " TBCs
FOR DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WATER
Maximum Maximum NJ NJPDES" FAWQCC Method Anti-
Concentration Concentration SWOO (JlI!J) CJt&/1) Detection Depadation
Detected in Detected in (JlI!J) (ARAR) Limitd GoaJC
Compound Ground Water Surface Water ("IBC) (JlIII) (JlI!J)
(JlI!J) (JlI!J) (MDL)
Aquatic' Pocablel
(ARAR) (ARAR)
N"actel 224.0 - - 56 13.4 31.4si. 20.0 ND (20.0)
Vanadium 1,490.0 14.4 - - - - 10.0 14.4
Zine 811.0 292 - 47 - - 20.0 292
Note:
1be roUowinl conventional parameter limits must also be considered:
Muim~. Detected Muimum Detected
PaNllleter In Ground Water In Surface Water Umlt Rationale
BOD - 2.1 ppm 2Sppm NJAC 7:9-5.1.
COD - 15 ppm 31 ppm Assume BOD:COD ratio is 0.8.
11>5 - 74 ppm 95ppm 133% of natural bactcround concentration. NJAC 7:9-4.
pH 8.4 6.9 6.5-8.5 NJAC 7:9-4.
1SS 2S.900 ppm - 40 ppm NJAC 7:9-4.
WboIe dDuent - - ~ . 100 No observed effects using 100% emuenL NJAC 7:9-4.
falicily
Treatability testin; win determine the ability of a treatment system to meet these limits.
'New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards NJAC 7:9-4 ror FW2-NI' WatelL
"New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Regulations NJAC 7:14A, Appendix F, Values ror Determination or NJPDES Permit Toxic
ElI1uent Limitations.
CJUenl Ambient Water Quality Criteria. Quality Criteria ror Water. May I, 1987. EPA 440/.5-86-001.
From "Toues Rule".
"MDLs are best available Contract Laboratory Program analytical method detection limit. (From Superfund Analytical Methods ror Low
Concentntion Water ror Orpnies Anal)'5is (6/91) and Superfund Analytical Methods ror Low Concentration Water ror Inorpnies Analysis (10/91»).
'Anti-depadation JOBI is bued on the maximum concentration detected in surface water. If contaminant was not detected in surface water or ir
detected below the method detection limit, the MDL is the anti-depadation goal.
'Maximum Values ror Protection or Aquatic: Lire.
IMaximum ValuCi ror Protection or Potable Water Supplies.
lIJ:ederal Ambient Water Quality Criteria; non-priority pollutants.
ipH dependent c:riterion. Value given bued on a pH or 6..S to 9.0.
IHardnea dependent c:riteri~. Value Jiven based on an assumed to&al hardness of 15 mJll.
- Value not available.
-------
APPENDIX IV
STATE LElTER OF CONCURRENCE
..., .
. The state did not concur.
------- |