United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-86/030
Sept 1986
«EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
Sharkey Landfill, NJ
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/RO2-86/030
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
SDPERFDND RECORD OF DECISION
Sharkey Landfill, NJ
5. REPORT DATE
September 29, 1986
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final ROD Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
800/00
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The Sharkey Landfill site comprises approximately 90 acres in the Parsippany - Troy
Hills and East Hanover Townships, Morris County, NJ. The site consists of 4 +
disconnected areas: North Fill, South Fill, Northwest Fill, Southwest Fill. Two
aquifers are found at this site. The upper aquifer, which comes into contact with fill
material in portions of the landfill, primarily drains into the bordering Rockaway and
Whippany Rivers. These rivers are used for recreational activities, and the Rockaway
serves as a potable water source further downstream. The Passaic Valley Water
Commission utilizes this aquifer for public supply. The lower aquifer completes a
public supply well in East Hanover Township. In 1945 the site began accepting municipal
solid waste from NJ counties. Between 1962 and 1969, Ciba-Geigy Co. allegedly disposed
of 753,000 Ibs. of hazardous and/or toxic materials. From April 1972 to May 1972,
25,700 tons of non-chemical wastes and 1,160 tons of "liquid and/or chemical wastes"
described as cesspool-type, and sludge from the adjacent Parsippany-Troy Hills Sewage
Treatment Plant (PTHSTP) were also deposited at the site. Between 1979 and 1981 refuse
was removed from the South Fill portion of the site and re-disposed in the North Fill
area for a PTHSTP expansion. Currently, landfill contaminants have migrated and
continue to migrate into the shallow aquifer beneath the site and the adjacent surface
water bodies. Although available data do not suggest that significant quantities of
(See Attached Sheet) __
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Record of Decision
Sharkey Landfill, NJ
Contaminated Media: gw, sw, soil,
Key contaminants: VOCs, TCE, organics,
inorganics, heavy metals
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report!
None
1. NO. OF PAGES
66
20. SECURITY CLASS (Tliil page!
None
22. PRICE
BPA form 2220-1 (R«». 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
-------
EPA/ROD/RO 2-86/030
Sharkey Landfill, NJ
16. ABSTRACT (continued)
hazardous substances are being released at the present time, there exists
the potential for future releases of contaminants at levels which could pose
a serious threat to public health and the environment. The primary
contaminants of concern include: VOCs, TCE, organics, inorganics, and heavy
metals.
The selected remedial action includes: capping of the landfill in
accordance with relevant RCRA Act requirements, including the appropriate
grading of fill areas; a venting system for landfill gases; extraction and
treatment of shallow ground water and leachate; surface water controls to
accommodate seasonal precipitation and storm runoff as well as erosion
control for river banks; security fencing to restrict site access; and
environmental monitoring program to ensure the effectiveness of the remedial
action. The estimated capital cost is 323,173,000 with annual O&M of
$330 ,000 .
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Site
Sharkey Landfill, Morris County, New Jersey
Documents Reviewed
I am basing my decision on the following documents, which describe
the analysis of remedial alternatives considered for the Sharkey
Landfill site.
- Remedial Investigation Report, prepared by Alfred Crew
Consulting Engineers, and Hazen and Sawyer, dated July 1986
- Evaluation of Alternatives (Feasibility Study) Report,
prepared by Alfred Crew Consulting Engineers, and Hazen and
Sawyer, dated August 1986
- Responsiveness Summary, dated September 1986
- Staff summaries and recommendations
Description of Selected Remedy
- Capping of the landfill in accordance with relevant Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act requirements, including the
appropriate grading of fill areas
- A venting system for landfill gases
- Extraction and treatment of shallow groundwater and leachate
- Surface water controls to accommodate seasonal precipitation
and storm runoff as well as erosion control for river banks
- Security fencing to restrict site access
- An environmental monitoring program to ensure the effective-
ness of the remedial action
-------
-2-
Declarations
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, and the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR
Part 300),- I have determined that the alternative described
herein is a permanent remedy that will control the source of
contamination and mitigate off-site migration of contaminants.
I have further determined that this remedy is the lowest cost
alternative that is both technically feasible and reliable. It
effectively mitigates and minimizes threats to and provides
adequate protection of public health and the environment. At
the same time, it meets all applicable and relevant Federal and
State public health and environmental requirements. Further,
the selected remedy is appropriate when balanced against the
availability of Trust Fund monies for use at other sites.
The State of New Jersey has been consulted and agrees with
the selected remedy.
J& ~~
Date I Christopher JJf Daggefct
Regional Administrator
-------
SUMMARY FOR REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SHARKEY LANDFILL SITE
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Sharkey Landfill site is located in the Townships of
Parsippany-Troy Hills and East Hanover, Morris County, New
Jersey. The study area lies within the area bounded by Route
46 to the north, New Road to the west, and the Rockaway River
to the east. To the south, sections of the site extend beyond
Route 280 into the neck between Troy Meadows and the Hatfield
Swamp. The general area in which the landfill is located can
be described as residential and light industrial to the north
and west, with the Whippany River and considerable swamp land
to the east and south. The site location is shown in Figure 1.
The site is located approximately 1/2 mile southwest of the
Pine Brook section of the Township of Montville, and is centered
approximately at 40° 50' 50" north latitude and 74° 20' 50"
west longitude. The landfill site consists of approximately
90 acres of irregularly-shaped, disconnected areas. The site
has been divided into the following areas as shown in Figure 2:
0 North Fill; The North Fill area is located on an island at
the northern end of Sharkey Road, and is bounded by branches
of the Rockaway River. The North Fill Bridge over the west
branch provides limited access from the South Fill to the
26-acre island. The island is owned by the Township of
Parsippany-Troy Hills.
This island site contains fill with intermittent soil cover
to a depth of 80 feet, resulting in steep, sparsely vegetated
slopes containing a number of leachate seeps and eroded
gullies. The highest portions of the North Fill were deposi-
ted there from the South Fill during the second expansion
of the Parsippany-Troy Hills Sewage Treatment Plant (STP).
The Rockaway River has undercut the landfill's banks and
exposed waste materials along the steep banks.
0 South Fill; Most of the South Fill site is located southeast
of Sharkey Road and is generally bounded on the east by the
Rockaway River, on the south by the Parsippany-Troy Hills
STP and the Whippany River, and on the west by the STP and
an adjacent wooded area off Edwards Road. This fill also
includes the area northwest of Sharkey Road between two
ponds and the Rockaway River. The South Fill site is owned
by the Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills.
The South Fill, excluding the sewage treatment plant, is
approximately 29 acres in size. The original treatment
plant structures were reportedly built on piles over the
landfilled wastes, but most of the wastes were removed
from the areas during construction of the expanded plant
facilities.
-------
-2-
*•*-Si- --^^-*E^ ^ CV*
=J^^i>fei=ft AN
^~l-C=-~-rr£JZr&.-K S\l
S^^^rJ FILL AREAS
FIGURE 1
SHARKEY LANDFILL LOCATION PLAN
2000
SCALE
-------
-3-
NORTH FILL
NORTHWEST
FILL
i^=^>> SOUTH FILL • AJ
SOUTHWEST
FILL
000'
1000'
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 2 : Sharkey Farms Landfill
Site Map
-------
-4-
The removed material associated with the first expansion
was relocated immediately northwest of the plant where it
formed the upper portion of the mound on the South Fill.
The fill deposited in this area ranged up to 70 feet high.
The mound's side slopes are steep but the earth cover
appears to be fairly uniform and, except where some erosion
has occurred, to be supporting vegetation. Gas vents are
located along the top of the South Fill mound where the
re-deposition occurred, but some of the vents have been
vandalized and are inoperative.
Access to this fill is mostly unrestricted except for gates
recently constructed at the entrance of Sharkey Road and
one near the North Fill Bridge. The two ponds, located
northwest of the South Fill adjacent to Sharkey Road, are
reportedly clean and supporting fish, amphibians, and
aquatic vegetation, despite the presence of plastics and
gas bubbles.
0 Northwest Fill; The Northwest Fill consists of two fill
areas divided by Route 280 and relocated Edwards Road. The
area southwest of Edwards Road, estimated at 15 acres, is
bordered by the new Whippany River to the south, Troy
Meadow to the west, and by a heavily-wooded area south of
the New Road/Edwards Road intersection. This portion of
the Northwest Fill site is owned by COMG Realty, c/o Ringlieb
Family.
The area northeast of Route 280 is bounded by Edwards Road
to the northeast, the Whippany River to the southeast, and
a wooded area bordering New Road to the northwest. This
portion of the Northwest Fill site, with an estimated area
of 11 acres, is owned by Dowel Associates.
The two portions of this fill area have sparse to intermittent
soil cover with many large areas of exposed refuse, including
rusted drums, particularly in the portion southwest of
Edwards Road. The topographic relief created by the landfill
operations in these areas is not as pronounced as in the
North and South Fill areas, generally reaching an estimated
••: elevation of 20 to 30 feet above the adjacent swamp to the
southwest. Access to these site areas is limited only by
the terrain.
8 Southwest Fill; This fill area is located in East Hanover,
and is bounded by Ridgedale Avenue to the northeast, a
drainage ditch to the southeast, the old Whippany River
channel to the southwest, and the relocated new Whippany
River to the northwest. The Southwest Fill site, with an
estimated area of 9 acres, is owned by Wildlife Preserves.
-------
— 5 —
The Southwest Fill is relatively level and ranges about 10
to 20 feet above the adjacent swampland. It also displays
generally good soil cover and vegetative growth. Part of
the original landfill was reportedly used for the redispos-
ition of approximately 184,000 cubic yards of wastes and
cover material excavated during the construction of Route
280 through the landfill. However, recollections of New
Jersey-Department of Transportation personnel during the
construction period indicate that some of the excavated
wastes were deposited in the southwest portion of the South
Fill. Access to the Southwest Fill is limited only by the
terrain.
SITE HISTORY
During the 1930's, the site was used as a pig farm, and in 1945,
landfilling operations began. In addition to accepting municipal
solid waste from several counties in northern New Jersey, the
landfill allegedly received hazardous and/or toxic materials
between 1962 and 1969 from Ciba-Geigy Company. Records indicate
that approximately 560,000 Ibs of toluene, 130,000 Ibs of benzene,
40,000 Ibs of chloroform, 20,000 Ibs of methylene chloride, and
3,000 Ibs of dichloroethylene were disposed at the site.
Operating reports filed by Sharkey Farms, Inc. with New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) for the period
from April 13, 1972 to May 10, 1972 indicate that approximately
25,700 tons of non-chemical wastes (90 percent household, 8
percent commercial, and 2 percent industrial) and 1,160 tons of
"liquid and/or chemical wastes" described as cesspool-type were
deposited at the site. In addition to the aforementioned
wastes, sludge from the adjacent Parsippany-Troy Hills STP was
deposited in the landfill.
Sharkey Farms ceased landfill operations on September 9, 1972.
However, it has been reported but not verified that about three
million gallons of wastewater of unknown composition were taken
to "Sharkey Disposal-Pine Brook" between 1972 and 1974. It is
not known, however, whether this is the Sharkey Landfill site.
The source of this wastewater was Koppers Chemical Company which
manufactured organic compounds. Koppers is no longer in operation,
The Sharkey Landfill is believed to have remained inactive until
1979, when excavation began for the expansion of the Parsippany-
Troy Hills STP. Several acres of refuse were removed from the
South Fill and re-disposed in the North Fill area. No evidence
of chemical waste disposal was reported during the excavation.
The expansion project was completed in 1981. Since that time,
the site has apparently remained unchanged.
-------
-6-
GEOLOGY
The site is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province.
It is situated within the Rockaway and Whippany River flood-
plains, in which recent deposition of clay, silt, and sand have
occurred. The area is characterized by a swampy lowland with a
few surrounding ridges and isolated hills rising above the
plain. Most of the area lies between the elevations of 170 and
440 feet above the mean sea level. The alluvial deposits are
underlain by stratified sands and gravels of glacial outwash of
the Wisconsin Epoch of Pleistocene Age.
The Wisconsin glaciation of Pleistocene Age has resulted in
significant morphological change of topography within this
physiographic province. During the Pleistocene Era, this area
was located near the northwestern shoreline of a very large
glacial lake, termed Lake Passaic, bordered by the highlands to
the southeast. This lake was fed by outwash from a northerly
retreating glacier that formerly occupied the area. The natural
drainage outlets for the pre-lake area were to the southeast,
near Summit, New Jersey. This outlet area was blocked by
glacial moraine during the development of the lake. Lake
Passaic grew in size as the glacier retreated northward. The
nearest that the Lake Passaic shoreline came to the landfill
was near Boonton, approximately five miles northwest of the
site.
As the glacier retreated and Lake Passaic grew, coarser outwash
deposits were deposited in areas to the south of the retreating
glacial front. Shoreline areas also received sediment-laden
runoff from the highlands to the west and the Basalt ridges to
the north and east. As the glacier retreated even further
northward from this area, silt and varved clay lake deposits
accumulated on the floor of the expanding lake. Both vertical
and lateral changes in composition occur in this type of deposit.
Pleistocenic glaciation buried the previous topography including
the preglacial stream valley in the area. The western portion
of Essex County delineates the extent of some of these buried
valleys. According to this data, the southern part of the site
lies near the western fringe of the buried Millburn Valley.
The buried valley may be influencing groundwater flow patterns
in the area.
Bedrock belonging to the Brunswick Formation of Triassic Age
underlies the unconsolidated deposits at the site. The depth to
bedrock on the site is believed to be approximately 150 feet on
the southern end of the landfill decreasing to 30 feet on the
northern end. The bedrock is composed of interbedded red shale
and sandstone with occasional conglomeritic beds. The thickness
ranges from 6000 feet to 8000 feet.
-------
-7-
The southern tip of a Triassic basalt flow known as Towoco
Mountain occurs less than 1/2 mile north of the site. It is
much more resistant than the adjoining shale and sandstone and
thus forms a prominent, crescent shaped ridge approximately seven
miles long. The Triassic rocks exhibit as monoclinal feature
and dip west-northwest at about eight to ten degrees. An
extensive northeast-southwest trending normal fault has uplifted
Precambrian Age metamorphic rock to ground level, approximately
seven miles west of the site.
CURRENT SITE STATUS
During the remedial investigation of the Sharkey Landfill site,
the following activities were undertaken:
- Electromagnetic and magnetometer survey of the entire site
- Installation of twenty-six monitoring wells
- Air monitoring
- Collection and priority pollutant analysis of the following:
0 Five shallow soil samples
0 Thirty-two groundwater samples
0 Eighteen surface water and sediment samples from the
Rockaway and Whippany Rivers
The results of the chemical analyses of these samples are
presented in Appendix 1.
The remedial investigation revealed that the site is characterized
by five distinct material types: fill, upper alluvial deposits,
varved clay, lower glacial outwash deposits, and bedrock. The
two aquifers found at this site - one in the upper alluvial
deposits (the upper aquifer) and one in the lower glacial
outwash deposits (lower aquifer) - are separated by the clay
layer. This clay layer is estimated to have an average thickness
of about 25 feet, an overall permeability of 1.3 x 10~7 centi-
meters per second (cm/sec), and is believed to be continuous
throughout the site.
The upper aquifer, which comes in contact with the fill material
in portions of the landfill, primarily drains into the Rockaway
and Whippany Rivers. These rivers are used for recreational
activities in areas near the landfill, and the Rockaway serves as
a potable water source further downstream. While no public ground-
water supplies are known to be derived from this aquifer in the
immediate area, three private wells are believed to exist,
upgradient of the site. The Passaic Valley Water Commission
does utilize this aquifer for public supply, although the
intake for this water supply is greater than eight miles down-
stream of the Rockaway/Passaic River confluence.
-------
-8-
The lower aquifer, which is a major drinking water source in
the area, primarily flows in the southwest direction. A public
supply well in East Hanover Township, which reportedly produces
500,000 gallons per day, is completed in this aquifer. This
well is within two miles of the site in an upgradient direction.
Three other private wells are also installed in this aquifer
within a mile of the site, and are likewise considered
upgradient.
In general, while some contaminants have been found in the
sampled media at and near the Sharkey site, they were found at
relatively low concentrations. Based on the types and concen-
trations of these contaminants, the site does not pose a signi-
ficant public health or environmental risk at this time.
Results from the air monitoring performed during the installation
of the monitoring wells suggest low probability of respiratory
or dermal hazard from air-borne volatile organics under ambient
conditions.
During the electromagnetic survey, five anomalous electromagnetic
conductivity areas were delineated. Subsequent magnetometer
surveys indicated that four of these anomalies were probably
caused by buried iron mass. A soil sample was taken of the
remaining anomalous area, but no significant detection of
organic compounds was reported.
The soil sampling points were selected at leachate seep drain-
ageways, storm water drainageways and the area of unexplained
anomalous electromagnetic readings. Seven volatile organic
compounds were identified from these samples at relatively low
concentrations: acetone, 2-butanone, naphthalene, phenanthrene,
2-methylnaphthalene, fluoranthene, and pyrene. Acetone and
2-butanone were also found in groundwater samples. In addition,
four pesticides were identified in these soil samples: dieldrin,
4,4'-DDD, endrin, ketone, and PCB-Aroclor 1254. Several inorganic
compounds were also detected, but at very low concentrations.
Of the twenty-six monitoring wells installed at the site,
fourteen were screened in the upper aquifer and twelve were
screened in the lower aquifer. In addition to these monitoring
wells, groundwater samples were taken from nearby residential,
commercial, and public supply wells. Three of the residential/
commercial wells were screened in the shallow aquifer; two were
screened in the lower aquifer, and one in the bedrock aquifer.
-------
-9-
The analytical results of the samples of the shallow aquifer
monitoring wells indicated low levels of organic contamination,
with only benzene and trichloroethene exceeding drinking water
standards. Inorganic chemicals, primarily heavy metals, were
also detected in the shallow aquifer. Some of these contaminants
were also found in excess of drinking water standards in both
rivers near the landfill. However, a short distance downstream,
the contaminant levels are low. The overall adverse effects of
the landfill on the water quality of the Rockaway and Whippany
Rivers appears to be minimal at this time. Also, the next
surface water intake, for the purpose of public consumption, is
approximately eight miles downstream of the site; thus, any
contaminants would be diluted.
The analytical results of the samples of the deeper aquifer reveal
the presence of cadmium, lead, chromium, iron, manganese, mercury,
and nickel at concentrations in excess of drinking water standards,
indicating that the landfill has impacted the aquifer. The
analyses of the lower aquifer also found one organic compound,
benzene, in one well at a concentration of 13 micrograms per
liter (ug/1). However, this detection is believed to be an
isolated occurrence which does not indicate significant organic
contamination in the lower aquifer.
While none of the samples of the residential and commercial wells
contained organic compounds, iron and manganese were found to
exceed drinking water standards in all wells. However, iron
and manganese appear to be common to the area. Low levels of
cyanide, phenols and chromium were found in the East Hanover
public supply well; they were below drinking water standards.
Based on the results of the remedial investigation, the location
of the existing potable wells in the vicinity of the Sharkey
site, and the flow direction of the two aquifers, the landfill
does not appear to be adversely affecting potable water quality
in the area at this time.
Two rounds of surface water, sediment, and leachate samples
were taken, one during dry weather conditions and the other
during wet weather conditions. The dry and wet weather surveys
detected low concentrations of organic or inorganic priority
pollutants. Cadmium and mercury concentrations exceeded the
drinking water standards downstream of the site at the Whippany
River during wet weather conditions and lead concentrations
exceeded the standards at the Rockaway River during dry weather.
However, cadmium and lead were found at higher concentrations
upstream of the site, and iron and manganese exceeded drinking
water standards at upstream sampling locations. The data
suggest that the site may not be the only source of these
metals. Cyanide was found during the wet weather survey at
location SD-7, which is close to the South Fill, at a concen-
tration of 33 ug/1, which is well below the drinking water
standard of 200 ug/1. This may indicate that cyanide is not an
environmental concern.
-------
-10-
ENFORCEMENT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent Information
Request Letters and Notice Letters to potentially responsible
parties (PRP's) during the years 1983 and 1984. The PRP's decli-
ned to undertake the remedial investigation and feasibility study
(RI/FS). Clba-Geigy met with EPA and NJDEP in May of 1984 to
discuss previous site investigations and planned RI/FS activities.
Additional Information Request Letters were sent by EPA in
September 1986. Notice Letters asking the PRP's to voluntary
undertake the Remedial Design and Remedial Action activities
will be issued after the designated deadline for response to
the information letters. On September 22, 1986, EPA and NJDEP
met with counsel for Ciba-Geigy to discuss the company's
efforts to locate additional parties who may have disposed of
hazardous waste at the site.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The evaluation of the results of the Remedial Investigation
provided the basis for establishing the cleanup goals and
objectives for site remediation. The cleanup goals and objectives
for the Sharkey Landfill site include the following:
0 Minimize the potential for migration of the low levels of
groundwater contamination I
0 Minimize the risk to the public from exposure to waste and
contaminated soil on the site
The purpose of a Feasibility Study (FS) is to develop and assess
remedial action alternatives based on site-specific conditions.
At a minimum, one alternative should be developed for each of five
categories outlined in the National Contingency Plan and EPA's
FS Guidance. The development and screening of remedial techno-
logies for the Sharkey Landfill involved the following procedure:
- From results of Remedial Investigation, identify site problems
and pathways of contamination;
- Identify general response actions that address site problems
and meet cleanup goals and objectives;
- Identify and screen possible remedial technologies in each
general response action based on applicability to site conditions;
- Combine technologies into feasibile alternatives;
- Screen alternatives based on protecting the environment,
public health, public welfare, and cost.
A list of general response actions that appeared to be appropriate
for the Sharkey site is presented in Table 1. This table also lists
the associated remedial technologies for each action along with an
assessment of the applicability of each remedial action based on
site characterisitics, waste problems, and existing contamination
at the site. Some of the technologies considered were innovative.
-------
TABLE 1
ACTION
SHARKEY LANDFILL
SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
APPLICABILITY/LIMITATION OF
SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGIES
APPLICABILITY
SITE/WASTE LIMITATIONS
TO TECHNOLOGY
1. Surface Water Controls
A. Capping
1. Synthetic membrane
2. Clay
3. Asphalt
4. Concrete
5. Chemical additives/
Stabilizers
6. Multilayered Cap
B. Grading
1. Scarification
2. Tracking
3. Contour Furrowing
C. Revegetation
1. Grasses
2. Legumes, shrubs, trees
Yes
Maybe
Yes
No
No
Maybe
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Slopes may restrict use of certain
materials. Also capping is required
by NJDEP for closure.
Incompatibility with site wastes;
slope considerations; may be part of
multimedia cap.
Probably as part of multilayered cap.
Rigidity unsuitable for unstable land-
fill environment; also may be incom-
patible with waste.
May be useful in reducing shrink/swell
behavior or neutralizing acid cover
soils.
An effective solution.
In conjunction with cap; not suitable
by itself. Slope should be sufficient
to promote runoff without erosion.
Primarily used for preparing top cap
layer for revegetation.
Tracking used principally in steep
slopes.
Necessary to prevent erosion and desi-
cation of cap layers.
Root systems would crack cap allowing
infiltration.
-------
TABLE 1 (Page 2 of. 1)
SHARKEY LANDFILL
SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
ACTION
APPLICABILITY
SITE/WASTE LIMITATIONS
TO TECHNOLOGY
D. Diversion and Collection
System
1. Berms
2. Ditches, trenches
and swales
3. Terraces and benches
4. Chutes and downpipes
5. Seepages or recharge
basins
6. Storage ponds
7. Levee/flood walls
2. Leachates and Groundwater Controls
A. Capping (See l.A)
B. Barriers
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Maybe
Maybe
Maybe
Maybe
Yes
Yes
1. Location
a. Downgradient
b. Upgradient
c. Horizontal
(bottom sealing)
Yes
Maybe
Required to control erosion, runoff
during construction and as a secondary
device for storm water control.
Particularly applicable during con-
struction; should be used in conjunc-
tion with other controls in a perman-
ent system.
Effective perimeter collection
mechanisms.
Primarily used in conjunction with
grading.
Only if necessary during construction.
Not long-term erosion control measure.
Possible for surface water diversion
depending on pern^ability of soils.
In conjunction with surface water
collection systems. Can be used to
dampen runoff flows from site.
Probably ineffective due to inherent
localized flooding.
Geology of site may enhance effective
placement of barrier in shallow aqui-
fer. The varved clay provides concep-
tually the potential for "keying" a
vertical retention barrier or slurry
wall.
Already present
clay deposit.
i.n form of natu
-------
TABLE 1 (Page 3 of 7)
SHARKEY LANDFILL
SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
ACTION
APPLICABILITY
SITE/WASTE LIMITATIONS
TO TECHNOLOGY
2. Material/Construction
a. Soil/bentonite
slurry wall
b. Cement/bentonite
slurry wall
c. Grout curtains
d. Sheet piling
(steel)
e. Synthetic membrane
C. In-Situ Permeable Treatment Beds
Maybe
No
Maybe
Maybe
Maybe
No
D. Groundwater Pumping
E. Subsurface Collection System
1. Drainage ditches/trenches
2. French drains/tile
3. Pipe drains
(multimedia drains)
Yes
Maybe
Yes
No
Yes
May be chemically attached by
leachate resulting in greater
permeability; strong acids or
bases may dissolve soil/bentonite.
Extra strength provided by cement
makes wall more permeable.
Grout can be mixed to set up fast
enough to fill large voids, but is
very expensive. May be chemically
attacked by leachate.
(See I.A.I).
Most treatment bed materials are
not effective for organic conta-
minants. Volume of leachate
generated at site would quickly
surpass capability of beds.
Used in conjunction with capping
and treatment. To lower groundwater
and extract leachate/groundwater.
Effective leachate/groundwater
collection mechanism for shallow
aquifer. Combination cap and
slurry wall, if implemented,
would limit effectiveness.
May have clogging problems.
Easily clogged. Difficult to
maintain.
May require filter cloth envelopes
to prevent clogging.
Ui
I
-------
TABLE 1 (Page 4 of 7)
SHARKEY LANDFILL
SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
ACTION
APPLICABILITY
SITE/WASTE LIMITATIONS
TO TECHNOLOGY
Excavation and Removal of
Waste and Soil
Maybe
Removal/Containment of Contaminated
Sediments
A. Sediment Removal
B. Sediment/turbidity controls
1. Silt curtains
2. Cofferdams/sheet pile
stream diversion/barriers
In-Situ Treatment
Water Treatment
A. Incineration/Destruction
No
Maybe
Maybe
No
B. Gaseous Waste Treatment
C. Liquid Waste Treatment
1. Biological treatment
No
Although some excavation of waste and
soil may be necessary as part of site
grading, the volume of waste/soil at
the site will probably preclude com-
plete removal/excavation, unless a
new RCRA facility is created on or
off-site.
Not applicable as contaminated sedi-
ment was not measured at the site.
Use if cannot excavate during dry
weather.
Generally unproven, experimental
technologies often waste specific,
Not applicable for site. Potential
contamination or existing contamina-
tion is at very low levels which are
not suitable for incineration tech-
nology.
No gas problems or potential volatile
organics were observed or monitored
at the site.
Existing contamination levels and
specific compounds found
organics) suggest on-site
treatment is not applicable.
-------
TABLE 1 (Page 5 of 7)
SHARKEY LANDFILL
SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
ACTION
APPLICABILITY
SITE/WASTE LIMITATIONS
TO TECHNOLOGY
7.
2. Chemical treatment
3. Physical treatment
a. Activated carbon
b. Air stripping
4. Discharge to publicly
owned treatment works
D. Sludge Handling and Treatment
1. Thickening/Dewatering
2. Treatment
E. Solidification/Encapsulation
1. Solidification
2. Encapsulation
Land Disposal/Storage
A. Landfills
No
Maybe
Maybe
No
No
Maybe
B. Surface Impoundments
C. Land Application
Maybe
No
Same waste limitations as for biolo-
gical treatment
On-site treatment of the shallow
aquifer could involve activated carbon
and/or air stripping due to the vola-
tile organics found in the shallow
wells and at very low concentrations.
POTW on-site (Parsippany-Troy Hills
Advanced Waste Treatment System)
No observed sludge problems at
site.
the
Waste and site characteristics
indicate that this technology is not
applicable for the site.
Although no known RCRA off-site
facility has landfill capacity in the
immediate area, EPA guidelines
suggest that this alternative be
screened.
Liquid waste (leachate) could not be
merely collected and stored. May
require treatment depending on the
contamination concentrations.
Potential toxicity/hazardousness of
waste preclude land application.
-------
ACTION
TABLE 1 (Page 6 of 7)
SHARKEY LANDFILL
SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
APPLICABILITY
SITE/WASTE LIMITATIONS
TO TECHNOLOGY
D. Waste Piles
E. Deep Well Injection
_ F. Temporary Storage
8. Contaminated Water Supplies
A. Alternate drinking water
supply
1. Deeper wells
2. Cistern or tanks
3. Municipal water system
B. Individual Treatment Units
9. Relocation
10. Access Restriction
A. Signs
B. Fencing
C. Security guards
No
No
No
No
Maybe
Maybe
Maybe
Maybe
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
^o
Need further treatment/disposal.
Lower aquifer is used as potable water
source.
Not applicable.
Public or residential potable wells
indicate concentrations below drinking
water standards. Some temporary
measures may be applicable as other
long-term remedial actions are pursued
if wells were to become contaminated.
If future conditions indicate contam-
ination, these subtechnologies may be
applicable. Note: Sampling of lower
aquifer which is used for water supply
did not indicate any organic contam-
ination .
In future, if contamination is isola-
ted or if low levels of contamination
are found.
Unless emergency or unexpected circum-
stances occurs.
Restricting access to site will reduce
chances of physical contact with
contaminants and reduce chances of
normal personal injuries.
Security guards would not be c
effective.
cr>
I
-------
TABLE 1 (Page 7 of 7)
SHARKEY LANDFILL
SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
ACTION
APPLICABILITY
SITE/WASTE LIMITATIONS
TO TECHNOLOGY
11. Erosion Control of River Banks
Yes
12. Gas Migration Controls
A. Passive pipe vents
B. Passive trench vents
C. Active gas collection system
Yes
Yes
No
Maybe
Must control refuse materials (tires,
bottles, debris) from leaving the
site along North Fill and South Fill
into the Rockaway River.
The level of methane system may re-
quire an active system. Additional
air sampling is required to defined
methane levels. In any event, NJDEP
required at least passive controls
for landfill closures.
-------
-18-
In following the procedure defined above, screened alternatives
were combined to form more definitive alternatives which addressed
the Sharkey Landfill's remedial objectives and EPA guidance
requirements for Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) feasibility studies. The results are
presented in Table 2 where six preliminary alternatives are
listed along with the corresponding remedial technologies.
Table 3 lists these alternatives and sub-alternatives along with
the associated capital and operation and maintenance costs.
These remedial alternatives are discussed below:
1. No Action
The National Contingency Plan requires that a No Action alterna-
tive be evaluated. Alternative 1, No Action, would involve
only long-term monitoring. This monitoring program would
include sampling of air, groundwater, and surface water at
several locations on a semi-annual basis. Three new shallow
wells and one intermediate well, into the lower aquifer, would
be installed at the site as part of this alternative. This
alternative would allow contaminants to continue to migrate
into the environment unchecked. While the present environmental
impact is limited, the data does show that hazardous materials
are currently migrating from the landfill with the surrounding
surface water. Since there were confirmed reports of hazardous
waste disposal at the site, there is a potential for a future
release of hazardous materials should this alternative be
implemented.
2. Minimal Action
Although Alternative 1 provides a program for monitoring at the
site, additional actions would be needed to reduce existing
site problems. Alternative 2 includes erosion control for the
banks of the Rockaway River, soil covering of the exposed
areas, rehabilitation of the North Bridge, additional site
security to control vehicle and pedestrian access to the Sharkey
Landfill, and a long-term monitoring program. Figure 3 shows
the areas to be fenced and exposed areas to be covered with
clean fill.
Areas of severe erosion are located at the northern tip of the
North Fill and along the banks of the South Fill, both on the
Rockaway River. In addition, there is no fill cover on the
banks of the Rockaway River along these two fill areas, and
garbage, tires, glass and rags are exposed. Under Alternative
2, the affected banks would be stabilized through the use of
gabion walls.
-------
Preliminary
Remedial Actions
TABLE 2
LISTING OF PRELIMINARY REMEDIAL ACTIONS
AND ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
Remedial Technologies
Capping
Site Cover (Grading) Contain- Ground-
Security Exposed Erosion Stormwater ment On-Site Off-Site water Off-Site
Monitoring Control Areas Control Control Barriers Treatment Treatment Pumping Excavation Disposal
1. No Action
2. Minimal Action
3. Capping
4. Containment of
Site Contaminants
and Capping
5. Capping and X
Groundwater
Pumping, Treatment,
Reinjection
6. Excavation of X
Landfill & Off-Site
Disposal
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X X
X X
X
VO
I
-------
-20-
Table 3
Summary of Capital and Present Worth Costs
Alternative
1. No Action
2. Minimal Action
3. Multimedia Cap
A. Sanitary closure
B. Synthetic liner
C. RCRA clay
D. RCRA clay and
synthetic liner
4. Capping and Containment
A. RCRA "model" cap
B. RCRA "model" cap for
three areas and
sanitary closure for
two areas
C. RCRA clay cap
5. Capping and Groundwater
Treatment
A. Air stripping system
a. RCRA "model" cap
b. RCRA clay cap
B. Sewage Treatment
Plant
a. RCRA "model" cap
b. RCRA clay cap
6. Excavation and Removal
A. Existing RCRA site
B. Sanitary landfill
C. New RCRA site
Capital Costs
$ 40,000
1,300,000
15,240,000
17,700,000
21,400,000
34,700,000
54,800,000
48,700,000
41,500,000
36,500,000
23,173,000
36,400,000
23,100,000
617,000,000
201,000,000
289,000,000
Present Worth* Total
O&M Costs Present Worth
$ 792,000
1,339,000
1,377,000
1,424,000
1,502,000
1,801,000
2,226,000
2,152,000
1,971,000
2,952,000
2,697,000
4,602,000
4,348,000
$ 832,000
2,639,000
16,617,000
19,124,000
22,902,000
36,501,000
57,026,000
50,852,000
43,471,000
39,452,000
25,870,000
41,002,000
27,448,000
617,000,000
201,000,000
289,000,000
Based on 30 years and 10% interest (factor 9.43)
-------
-21-
•_vj ^..A'-rvC^c?-^/^ •*"" "^
-- —\ *• / -i^v ^** •-•- • f\ ^-^ _ *S.*«^_X .\-^L:
FIVE SITE OPTION
ALTERNATIVE 2 - MINIMAL ACTION
-------
-22-
There are areas of exposed refuse which need to be covered in
the North Fill, South Fill and the Northwest Fill south of Route
280. These exposed areas could be a potential source of air
emissions and also provide a mechanism for precipitation to
come in contact with hazardous substances and carry contaminants
into the aquifer beneath the site. Covering these exposed
areas will include clearing and grading; placing a layer of
clean fillT and seeding, fertilizing and mulching. In order to
work in areas in the North Fill, the North Bridge which accesses
the fill needs to be rehabilitated. Alternative 2, like Alter-
native 1, would allow contaminants to continue to migrate into
the environment and would not reduce the potential for a future
release of contaminants that may pose a public health or environ-
mental threat.
3. Multimedia Cap
There is documentation of hazardous waste dumping at Sharkey
Landfill. Although available data indicate that the level of
contamination at present is relatively low and localized in the
shallow aquifer which drains into the Rockaway and Whippany
Rivers, the potential exists for detection of higher levels of
contamination in the future. Alternative 3 includes a multimedia
cap over the Sharkey Landfill (Figure 4), surface water (runoff)
control, erosion control for the banks of the Rockaway River,
rehabilitation of the North Bridge, installation of gas collection
vents, additional site security, and long-term monitoring. This
alternative would control the migration of contaminants off-site
by reducing the rate of leachate produced through infiltration of
precipitation. However, there would still be a natural exchange
between the landfill and rivers, especially on the North Fill
and part of the South Fill, where a portion of the fill material
is actually situated below the surface water level of the
Rockaway River. The potential environmental and public health
risks associated with the exposure of fill material and leachate
seeps are greatly reduced by this alternative.
Four capping options were evaluated, each providing a different
degree of protection and reliability. They include capping
with clay, capping with a synthetic liner, and capping with a
combination of clay and a synthetic liner (Response Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) "model" cap).
-------
-23-
KAZEN AND SAWYER, re
Eno,
FIVE SITE OPTION
ALTERNATIVE 3, 4, 6 AREAS OF REMEDIAL ACTION
-------
-24-
A. Clay Cap - Sanitary Landfill Closure
The Sharkey Landfill can not be considered a sanitary landfill
because hazardous waste dumping at the site is documented.
Therefore, Alternative 3-A, which would close the site as a
sanitary landfill, is not considered appropriate. However, it
does satisfy the objective of evaluating remedial actions which
do not attain applicable or relevant public health or environmental
standards but would reduce the likelihood of present and future
threats from hazardous substances.
For this alternative, a complete cap typically consists of
the following: a bedding layer^placed and compacted on top of
the solid waste; an impervious layer; a drainage layer; and a
vegetative layer. Figure 5 shows the detailed typical cross-
section of the cap.
The implementation of sanitary landfill closure is based on known
technologies and engineering principles and is effective in re-
ducing infiltration. Although increased air emissions would
be expected during grading, this alternative will provide some
long-term benefits. These benefits include a reduction in pond-
ing of rain water on the fill, a reduction in leachate generation
and subsequent off-site migration of contaminants, and a reduction
in potential air emmissions due to inadequate cover. However,
the wastes would still remain in contact with the groundwater,
specifically in the North Fill and areas of the South Fill,
could cause some leachate production and off-site contamination.
This alternative is implementable, provides some degree of
reliability, and involves minimal operation and maintenance.
B. Synthetic Liner Cap
This alternative, which would include the same closure standards
as for Alternative 3-A, considers the use of a synthetic liner
as the component of the impervious layer instead of clay. The
capping criteria would be as follows: a 6-inch sand bedding; a
30-mil synthetic liner; a 1-foot drainage layer; and 1 foot of
topsoil and vegetation.
The environmental benefits and the implementability of this
alternative are similar to those for Alternative 3-A. However,
because of the steep slopes at the site, the synthetic liner is
not considered as reliable as clay.
This alternative does not attain all of the environmental
standards but would reduce the likelihood of present and future
threats from hazardous substances.
-------
-25-
VEGETATION
w/
1' TOP SOIL
SJSJ
:::1 DRAINAGE LAYER:?:
CLAY;
SOLID WASTE
9/19/86
FIGURE 5
SANITARY LANDFILL CAP
-------
-26-
C. Clay Cap
This alternative considers the closure of the landfill as a
hazardous waste site in accordance with relevant RCRA and State
requirements.
Instead of using one foot of clay for the impervious layer, as
in Alternative 3-A, Alternative 3-C would include two feet of
clay. This alternative meets the performance requirements of
RCRA Subtitle C which includes a multimedia cap with a permeability
of 10~7 cm/sec. It also is consistent with State of New Jersey
requirements for the closure of landfills which accepted all types
of solid wastes.
There is evidence of hazardous waste dumping at the landfill
and hazardous substances were found to be present. Although
available RI/FS data do not indicate that significant quantities
of contaminants are currently being released to the environment,
there exists the possibility of future releases which may cause
serious environmental and public health impacts. This capping
alternative would consider such a potential threat and provide
a more protective and reliable cover than Alternative 3-A or
3-B. Figure 6 shows the detailed typical cross-section of the
cap.
The environmental benefits of this alternative are greater than
those for Alternative 3-A, based on the more impermeable and
reliable surface barrier. However, wastes would still remain
in contact with the groundwater as in the previously described
capping alternatives, which could cause leachate production and
off-site contamination.
Implementation of this capping option is based on known technolo-
gies and engineering principles and is effective in reducing
infiltration. This alternative has similar, but increased
benefits compared to Alternative 3-A, and involves minimal oper-
ation and maintenance.
D. Clay and Synthetic Liner Cap - RCRA "Model" Cap
This alternative involves the closure of the site as a hazardous
waste landfill utilizing a RCRA "model" cap. The "model" cap
consists of the following: a bedding layer installed on top of
the solid waste; an impervious layer (clay); a second bedding
layer; a second impervious layer (synthetic liner); a drainage
layer; and a vegetative layer (see Figure 7). The cover require-
ment used for this alternative also meets NJDEP Regulations
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26-10, "Additional Operational and
Design Standards for Hazardous Waste Facilities", specifically
N.J.A.C. 7:28-10.8,"Hazardous Waste Landfills".
-------
-27-
VEGETATION
>:1' DRAINAGE LAYERS
CLAY!
9fi5l96
FIGURE 6
RCRA CLAY CAP
-------
-28-
VEGETAT10N
20 MIL.
LINER
:-:-:-:DRAINAGE LAYER:-:-:-
SOLID WASTE
T-
2'
I r''
. 1
0H9/86
FIGURE 7
RCRA "MODEL" CAP
-------
-29-
The environmental benefits of this alternative are similar to,
but greater than those for any of the other capping options.
The "model" cap would provide a more impermeable surface barrier
than the other capping options. However, because the waste
would remain in contact with the groundwater, the alternative
does not achieve greater compliance with RCRA Subtitle C,
Hazardous Waste Management Regulations.
Although this alternative does not attain all the environmental
standards, it would reduce the likelihood of present and future
threats from hazardous substances.
4. Multimedia Cap and Containment Barrier (Slurry Wall)
This alternative adds to Alternative 3 by providing an additional
component to the remedial action, containment of the shallow
aquifer. The alternative controls migration of contaminants
from the landfill through a multilayered cap which controls
leachate production, and a slurry wall barrier along the perimeter
of the fill areas which control the migration of contaminated
groundwater in the shallow aquifer. The slurry wall would be
keyed to the clay layer beneath the site.
The slurry wall would minimize the lateral groundwater flow into
and out of the fill areas. The total length of the proposed
slurry wall would be approximately 21,000 linear feet with an
average depth of 40 feet. The remedial technologies associated
with Alternative 4 would be the same as Alternative 3, in ad-
dition to the construction of the slurry wall. Groundwater con-
tainment by use of slurry wall is a proven, effective technology.
Based on the present data and past references, three options have
been considered under this alternative.
Option A - Installing a RCRA "model" cap and a slurry wall
throughout the entire fill area. The cap will
be installed with the same specifications as
for Alternative 3-D.
Option B - Installing a RCRA "model" cap and slurry wall
for the North an.d South Fills, and installing a
sanitary landfill cap in the Northwest (North and
South of Route 280) and Southwest Fills. The
sanitary landfill cap is well explained in
Alternative 3-A.
Option C - Installing a RCRA clay cap and slurry wall
throughout the entire area. The components of
the cap are described in Alternative 3-C.
This alternative meets applicable or relevant public health and
environmental standards and will satisfy both Federal and State
requirements concerning the closure of hazardous waste landfills.
This alternative prevents the contact of waste with the groundwater,
complying with RCRA Subtitle C, Hazardous Waste Management Regu-
lations. Therefore, this alternative provides more environmental
protection than Alternative 3.
-------
-30-
5. Multimedia Cap, Groundwater Pumping and Treatment
This alternative would control migration of contaminated material
off-site through installation of a multimedia cap and groundwater
extraction and treatment. Based on EPA and NJDEP requirements
for closure of a landfill, treating groundwater without providing
a surface cap is not considered an acceptable alternative.
Under this alternative, groundwater would be pumped from the
landfill areas, as shown in Figure 8, to extract contaminated
groundwater from the shallow aquifer. Groundwater would be
removed from the shallow aquifer at a rate equivalent to the
estimated recharge to that aquifer. It is projected, however,
that the refuse in some areas of the landfill will exist below
present and anticipated post-closure groundwater levels.
Therefore, there would be a continuing interaction between
groundwater and refuse materials. Extraction of the groundwater
should effectively isolate the contaminants from the surrounding
ground and surface waters.
Under this alternative, a series of perimeter recovery wells
would be constructed along a line parallel to the Rockaway and
Whippany Rivers, bordering all five areas, and linked by a
common trench along the pumping line. The contaminated ground-
water could be either treated on-site using a separate air
stripping treatment system or treated at the Parsippany-Troy
Hills sewage treatment plant, which is on the site. These two
treatment alternatives are discussed below:
Option A: On-Site Air Stripping Treatment System
This alternative would involve a centralized treat-
ment system with discharge of treated effluent to
the Rockaway River. A preliminary unit sizing for
an air stripping system would be a 2.5 feet diameter
packed column with 15 to 20 feet depth of plastic
media.
Option B: Parsippany-Troy Hills Sewage Treatment Plant
The existing sewage treatment plant includes secondary
biological treatment with seasonal nitrification and
denitrification. Since the contaminants detected in
the groundwater are biodegradable, the contaminated
groundwater could be treated by the sewage treatment
facility.
The environmental benefits of this alternative exceed those of
Alternative 3. Not only is leachate production reduced through
the installation of a cap, but contaminants would not migrate
off-site because of the effective isolation of the waste through
groundwater pumping.
-------
-31-
FIVE SITE OPTION
ALTERNATIVE 5 - CAPPING AND GROUNDWATER PUMPING
-------
-32-
The isolation of wastes through groundwater management is a
demonstrated, reliable technology/ and is implementable. In
addition, this alternative meets applicable or relevant public
health and environmental standards.
6. Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of Waste
This alternative would control migration of materials off-site
from the Sharkey Landfill through the excavation and removal of
the entire landfill, and transporting the excavated material
for disposal at an approved landfill site. The entire fill
area as shown in Figure 4 was considered for off-site disposal.
Three disposal options were considered in assessing this altern-
ative.
0 Option A - Transport the waste to an approved existing
RCRA disposal facility, such as at Model City,
New York.
0 Option B - Transport the material to a local sanitary
landfill, such as at the Meadowlands, New
Jersey.
0 Option C - Transport the waste to a new RCRA facility to
be constructed as part of this alternative.
The estimated amount of material to be removed is 3,900,000 cubic
yards of fill. The excavated areas would be backfilled, regraded
up to an elevation of approximately 175 feet above mean sea level,
and seeded. The backfilling operation would require approximately
1,500,000 cubic yards of fill. Since the actual location(s) of
areas of potential contamination were not positively defined
from historical information or from the remedial investigation,
total removal and disposal of the Sharkey Landfill material was
the only case considered for the off-site disposal.
This alternative meets the CERCLA remedial objective that re-
quires evaluation of an alternative which provides for treatment
or disposal of hazardous substances in an approved off-site
facility. By removing all the fill material, one can expect the
site to be considered clean after completing the filling, grading
and revegetation. Therefore, this alternative also satisfies
the requirements of examining a remedial alternative which ex-
ceeds existing standards. This alternative would provide a highly
effective means to mitigate the potential exposure to any con-
taminants in the landfill or any material remaining at the site.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
A public meeting was held on November 29, 1984 at the Parsippany-
Troy Hills Municipal Building to discuss the proposed RI/FS.
-------
-33-
Notices announcing the meeting were sent to local officials and
interested parties as outlined in the Sharkey Landfill Community
Relations. Plan. At this meeting, NJDEP officials and their
consultants discussed in detail the work to be conducted as
part of the RI/FS for the site.
The RI/FS report was made public on August 13, 1986. A public
comment period began on that day and was closed on September 2,
1986. A second public meeting was held on August 21, 1986 to
discuss the results of the RI/FS and the preferred alternative.
Concern expressed by the public and other entities are addressed
in the Responsiveness Summary appended to this documment
(Appendix 2).
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
In addition to accepting municipal solid waste, the Sharkey
Landfill allegedly received hazardous and/or toxic materials
between 1962 and 1969 from Ciba-Geigy, a pharmaceutical company.
Sharkey Farms Landfill was permitted by the local health depart-
ment to operate until 1970, when State regulations preempted
all local regulations. A certificate to conduct a refuse
disposal operation (Certificate No. 1458300) for refuse, chemical
waste (liquid and solid), and waste oils was issued on July 10,
1970 by NJDEP. The landfill reportedly operated for six days a
week until a July 6, 1972 order issued by the New Jersey Department
of Public Utilities required the discontinuance of Saturday
service in order to provide the time needed to install sufficient
cover material, in accordance with Chapter 8 of the New Jersey
Sanitary Code.
The sanitary landfill closure alternative considered the history
of the site and the relevant State guidelines and regulations.
However, the documentation of hazardous waste dumping, and
available chemical data indicating the presence of hazardous
substances in the landfill site, suggest that implementation of
the sanitary landfill closure alternative is not appropriate.
To cap the site as a sanitary landfill to comply with the New
Jersey "Non-hazardous Waste Management" Regulations would not
provide a sufficient level of protection to accomodate the
potential future releases of contaminants. Moreover, this
alternative is not consistent with applicable Federal require-
ments under RCRA for hazardous waste facilities.
Because of evidence of hazardous waste dumping and the detection
of some hazardous substances at the site, the relevant and
appropriate standards for closure are stated in RCRA Subtitle C.
The hazardous waste cap and groundwater barrier alternative was
developed as a remedial alternative to comply with RCRA. The
RCRA cap with groundwater extraction, and the RCRA cap alone,
would allow the waste to come into contact with the groundwater,
specifically in the North Fill and part of the South Fill.
Therefore, these alternatives would not ensure compliance with
RCRA Subtitle C as fully as would the cap with the slurry wall.
-------
-34-
The RCRA cap with groundwater pumping would effectively
isolate the waste so that generated leachate does not migrate
off-site. Groundwater would be extracted and treated either
on-site or at the sewage treatment plant. The excavation and
off-site disposal alternative would also comply with RCRA
because the disposal facility would be reguired to comply with
the appropriate regulations.
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
In evaluating the alternatives, it was determined that Alternative
5-A(b) would provide sufficient protection of public health and
the environment, would meet the performance standards of the
applicable reguirements, is cost-effective and has a legal
basis for remedial action under Superfund.
As stated previously, hazardous wastes were disposed of at the
Sharkey Landfill site, which was not properly closed after
operations ceased. As a result, landfill contaminants have
migrated and continue to migrate into the shallow aguifer
beneath the site and the adjacent surface water bodies. Although
available data do not suggest that significant guantities of
hazardous substances are being released at the present time,
there exists the potential for future releases of contaminants
at levels which could pose a serious threat to public health and
the environment. Therefore, Alternative 1 (No Action) and
Alternative 2 (Minimal Action) are not considered adequate
because they do not meet the proper closure reguirements for
landfills nor do they address the potential threat of a future
release of contaminants.
Alternative 3 addresses capping of the landfill in accordance
with RCRA and State requirements. However, wastes that may
contain hazardous substances are known to be in contact with the
groundwater which discharges into the surface waters surrounding
the site. This condition could cause the production of leachate
and off-site migration of contaminants. Therefore, Alternative
3 was not considered appropriate.
Alternative 6 (Excavation and Removal) would totally remove the
threat to public health and the environment. However, this
alternative is extremely expensive, difficult to implement, and
unwarranted based on the level of risk associated with the
site.
The two alternatives which address leachate production and the
off-site migration of landfill contaminants into the groundwater
are Alternative 4 (Capping and Containment) and Alternative 5
(Capping and Groundwater Treatment). In view of the level of
health or environmental risk, it is believed that Alternative 5
would provide sufficient control of the migration of contaminants
through the groundwater pathway. Alternative 4 would more
effectively isolate the wastes from the environment and thus
provide a higher degree of control of contaminant migration.
However, the substantial higher cost to implement Alternative 4
is not considered cost-effective in comparison to Alternative 5.
-------
-35-
In evaluating the options within Alternative 5, RCRA and State
closure requirements were considered, as were groundwater
treatment requirements. As discussed previously, the Sharkey
Landfill is considered a hazardous waste site. Therefore, the
relevant and appropriate Federal statute governing closure is
RCRA Subtitle C. The recommended alternative meets the perfor-
mance requirements of the relevant RCRA regulations (multimedia
cap with a"permeability of 10~7 cm/sec), although it does not
meet the compositional criteria of the RCRA "model" cap. The
"model" cap with the added synthetic liner would significantly
increase the costs without showing a corresponding increase in
effectiveness. It is considered unwarranted for this site. If
a synthetic liner is required in the future, the additional
grading of the fill areas will facilitate installation.
The multimedia cap of Alternative 5-A(b) will reduce the infil-
tration of precipition through the landfill, and the use of a
pumping and treatment system will prevent contaminants from
migrating off-site. The pumping system, as explained in Alter-
native 5, will be installed to capture contaminated groundwater.
One final option which was considered and rejected involved
treating some fill areas as hazardous waste sites and others as
sanitary landfills. Based on information concerning the time of
hazardous waste dumping and the transfer of waste materials
among the various fill areas during construction of a highway
and sewage treatment plant, it was determined that such a
distinction (i.e., hazardous versus non-hazardous) could not
definitely be made. Because of the lack of information confirm-
ing the absence of hazardous waste at any of the fill areas,
the recommended alternative includes capping and groundwater
pumping for all five fill areas.
A cap cross-section and a site lay-out illustrating the recommended
alternative are provided in Figures 4 and 7. The features of
the selected alternative are described in Table 4.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Upon installation of the recommended remedial action, operation
and maintenance (O&M) will consist of:
0 O&M of the groundwater pumping and treatment system
0 Routine maintenance of the landfill cap and gas vents
0 Routine maintenance of the site to control erosion and
surface water runoff
0 Long-term monitoring to assess the quality of the groundwater
(lower and upper aquifers) and surface waters (Rockaway and
Whippany Rivers)
The annual operation and maintenance cost is estimated at
$330,000.
-------
-36-
Table 4
Capital Cost Estimate For Alternative 5-A(b)
Activity Capital Cost*
1 - Capping all five areas $13,513,000
2 - Groundwater pumping and recovery system 1,700,000
3 - Air stripping treatment system 100,000
4 - Clear, grub and grade sites 327,000
5 - Cover exposed areas 454,000
6 - Methane collection vents 284,000
7 - Shoreline stabilization 192,000
8 - Storm water control 1,319,000
9 - Improvement of site security 145,000
10 - Rehabilitation of North Fill Bridge 91,000
11 - Long-term monitoring (installation of
additional monitoring wells) 48,000
Total Capital Cost 23,173,000
* 10 percent for contingency and 10 percent for engineering, legal
adminstration, and startup costs are included.
-------
-37-
SCHEDULE -
Project Date
- Record of Decision September 1986
- Initiate Enforcement Action September 1986
- Obligate Design Funds Pending CERCLA
Reauthorization
or State Funding
- Amend Cooperative Agreement Pending CERCLA
for Design Reauthorization
or State Funding
- Initiate Design Pending CERCLA
Reauthorization
or State Funding
- Complete Design Pending CERCLA
Reauthorization
or State Funding
-------
APPENDIX I
SUMMARY
OF
SAMPLING RESULTS
-------
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
NORTH FILL
(PPB)
>-9 WS-]
ws-:
WI-15 WI-16
SD-10&11 L-6
S-!
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Chloride
Xylene
Chloroform
Benzene
Benzo (a) Pyrene
Acetone
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
INORGANICS (PPB)
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Barium
Cadmium
Cyanide
17
14
27
146
480
1.6
564
73
42
32
334
1390
18
22
75
77
320
21
34
22
27
15
940*
310*
940*
940*
310*
182
405
1440
60
70
70
19
16
32
46
6.1
332
60
776
WS = Shallow wells
WI = Intermediate wells
WD = Deep wells
SD = Surface water samples
L = Leachate samples
S = Soil samples
Sediment Samples
-------
(Cont. SUMMARY OF RESULTS)
SOUTH FILL
ORGANICS (PPB) WS-2 WS-6 WS-7 WS-8 WS-17 WI-6 WI-7 WI-8 WI-17 WD-2 SD-3 SD-6 SD-7 SD-8&9 L-3&4 S-4
Chloroform
Trichloroethene
Benzene
75
13
6
13
ACID .BASE
NEUTRAL (PPB)
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)
Phthalete
Phenanthrene
Flouranthene
Pyrene
Benzo (a)
Anthracene
Benzo (k)
Fluoranthene
INORGANICS (PPB)
Chromium
Nickel
Lead
Cadmium
Mercury
Cyanide
Barium
4990
87
63
63 60
41
145
97
49
16
31
206
181
39
25
370*
270*
670*
200*
200*
330*
60
70*
13
2.1
60
12
33
80
3.2
1020
138
WS = Shallow wells
WI = Intermediate wells
WD = Deep Wells
SD = Surface Water Samples
L = Leachate Samples
S = Soil Samples
Sediment Samples
-------
(Cont. SUMMARY OF RESULTS)
NORTHWEST (S) FILL
ORGANICS (PPB)
Chlorobenzene
Benzene
INORGANICS (PFB)
Chromium
Nickel
NORTHWEST (N) FILL
ORGANICS (PPB)
Acetone
Benzo (a) Pyrene
INORGANICS (PPB)
Chromium
Lead
Cyanide
Nickel
SOUTHWEST FILL
INORGANICS (PPB)
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
BACKGROUND
ACID BASE NEUTRALS
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)
Fluoranthene
INORGANICS (PPB)
Chromium
Nickel
Cadmium
Lead
Barium
WS-5 WI-5
23
28
WS-3 WI-3
54 68
290
248
172 72
WS-4 WI-4
341
81
246 17
(PPB) WS-14
Phthalate
89
60
L-2 SD-2
10
80 60
50
WD-3 L-5
143
80
307 100
SD-2 L-l
60 69
WS-lOt SD-1
492
594
13
80
1280
S-3
57
1500
159
27
S-l
28
50
SD-4
370
200
70
70
WS = Shallow Wells
WI = Intermediate Wells
'WD = Deep Wells
SD = Surface Water Samples * Sediment Samples
L = Leachate Samples
S = Soil Samples
t Undetermined as background
-------
APPENDIX II
RESPONSIVENESS
SUMMARY
-------
Sharkey Fr.rr.s Landfill
Parsippany-Troy Kills and East Hanover Townships
Mcrrir. Ccuuty
New Jersey
Responsiveness Summary
for comments on the
On-site Feasibility Study
This community relations responsiveness summary, prep?red as part of the Record
of Decislor CP.CD), is divided into the following sections:
I. Background on Community Involvement and Concerns
This is a brief history of community interest concerning the Sharkey Farms
Landfill sitt tr
-------
Fillppone, Executive Administrator of the Coalition, stressed the
Coalition's interest in the Passaic River Watershed basin, and in
particular, the poEribility of pollutants moving into the aquifers from the
landfill. A particular concern was the fact that the landfill operated
before regulations existed. The Coalition requested that a monitoring
program be implemented prior to cleanup, ar.d thet "containment and
cleanup... be expedited, as it poses a grave threat to a designated sole
source aquifer1' (see attachment A).
In addition tc the Psssaic River Coalition, there were various requests for
information on the landfill status from various parties. Theee ir.cliirled
requests from then Assemblyman Dean Gallo's office, the Townships cf
Parsippany-Troy Hills, East Hanover, Montville and Washington, the
Boontcn-Mrntville League of Women Voters, individual citizens, the Star
Ledger and WMTR radio. Again, the primary issues of concern were potential
contamination of the aquifers and that site clean-up be implemented in a
timely manner. In each case, information on the Sharkey site was giver over
the telephone by the NJDEP's, Bureau of Community Relations and ell
interested parties were placed on the mailing list for this site.
An atteirpt was made by NJDEP to locate any additional interested parties or
active citizen groups in the area. In contacts with the Parsippany-Trcy
Rills and East Hanover Town Halls and Health Departments, it was deterrir.ec?
that there were no additional organized active citizens/environmental group?
in the area.
On November 29, 1984 NJDEP held a public meeting at the Parsippany-Troy
Hills Town Hall tc dircuss the initiation of the RI/FS at the site.
Notification of the meeting was accomplished through press releases and
direct mailing of roticer: tc local, state and federal officials, as well as
all concerned citizens and citizens groups. Approximately 30 people
attended the meeting ard ?£er.dns and information packages were distributed
(cue attendance sheet and information p^ckrpe, Attachment B). Issues and
concerns raised during the re.eting and responses given included:
Ccrjr.er.t: Concern about creating unnecesEzry fear among local residents and
spending so much money when previous DEP monitoring did not indicate
the presence of a toxic condition.
Response: It was pointed out that a careful definition of hazardous ard tcy.ic
terms was important. EPA sampling in 1980 and 1981 indicated that
toxic substances may be present at the landfill. DEP sair.p]irg was
conducted in 1978 when sampling techniques vere not as advanced as they
are fccY.y (1984).
Comment: The Parsippany-Troy hills Volunteer Fire DepartE.crt expressed concern
about the errerper.cy response plan and offered to point out locations
where fires have occurred on the site.
Response: A copy of the health and safety plan WPF offered to the Fire
Department, and thr.?.r collaboration on It was welcomed. In addition,
they were offered a key to the trailer where rprcial fire-fighting
equipment would be stored. It vas pointed out that the DEP emergency
unit is available on a 24-hour basis.
-------
Comment: A question vas raided about responsible party pursuit. ?rd an offer was
made to review observations of landfill operations, during its active
period.
Response: The principal sources of infonr.fitier ?re the 1976 State Industrial
Survey and a similar study conducted by the federal government in 1S.'1;0.
Activities conducted by the KJDEP as r. follow-up to the public meeting
included briefing the P?r?Ippc-ny-Troy Hills Fire Department on the
Emergency Response Plan, as well as infomiirp their, of planned well-
drilling, etc., and crrrultation with Mrs. Dorothy Jurgel, a resident
of New Road regarding past operating procedure Pt the landfill. In
January 1985, Mr. ?.r:d Mrs. Jurgel submitted a 27-page compilation of
Information en the Sharkey Landfill including news, articles, letters,
ordinances ard regulations, photographs and persons1 rotes (see
Attachment C).
II. Summary of Major Questions/Commcntc Pprelved During the Public Connent
Period and NJDEP's Responses
On August 13, 1986 the RI/FS WEE pieced in the following repositories for
public review: East Hanover Municipal Building, Farsippany-Troy Hills
Municipal Building, Morris Ccurty Public Library in Whippany, Parsippany-
Troy Hills Public Library, East Hanover Public Library and the NJDEP,
Division of Hazardous Site Mitigation in Trenton. NJDEP issued a press
release and contacted local officials, as well as Interested citizen groups
regarding the svelJfbility of the RI/FS at these repositories.
On August 21, 19S6 NJDEP held a public meetirp tr present the results of,
and receive cominents/quppfions regarding the RI/FS. Notification of the
meeting was accomplished through press releafF? and direct mailing of
notices to local, stpte ard federal officials, as well as concerned citizens
and citizen groups (see Attachment P). Approximately 30 pecple cttended the
meeting; rrd esch received an agenda, fact sheet, an overview of the
community relations program and a paper copy of the slides used in the
contractors presentation. (attendance sheet and hand-out, see Attachment
E). The public comment period was held from August 13, 19P6 through
September 2, 1986. In addition to the comn-er.ts made during the public
meeting, four letters were received by the Department during this period
(See Attachnrrt F).
During the public meeting, Dr. George Kehrberger of Alfred Crrx.- Ccrrulting
Engineers presentee1 rir i-eniedial alternatives for long-tern site remediation.
These are:
0 Ko action, except long-term monitoring:
0 Lung-term monitoring, erosion control, site security and
ccverirp exposed areas;
0 Long-tenr. monitoring, erosion control, site security ard a
multimedia cap;
0 Long-term monitoring, erosion control, sire security, a
multimedia cap and containment barrier;
0 Long-term rccr.itrrlnp, erosion control, site security, a
uultircedia cap and pumping and treatment of ground water; and
0 Excavation and removal of waste r.r.terlals.
-------
Richard Salkie, Acting Director of NJDEP's Division of Razerdrur Site Mitigation,
then discussed NJDEP's recommended alternative which includes site security and
access, erosion control and shoreline {stabilization, capping, gas collection
system, storm water control and long-term roonltrrlrg of the site. Comments and
questions were ther received from the audience. In addition to Director Salkie,
and Dr. Kehrberger, representatives assisting with the RI/FS of P.F. V'ri^lit
/.££c-cl?tes=, HydroQual and Hazer. and Sawyer were present and responded tc
questions relevant to their areas of expertlpr.
Questions and Coianer.tE from the August 21, 1986 Public Meeting
Note: Subsequent to the August 21, 1986 public netting, the NJDEP has been in
consultation with the USEPA et Region II and Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
The USEPA has requested the KJDEF to recommend additional reiredial measures for
an extra rcrr^in of control of contamination release based upon documentation cf
waste disposal at this site. These additional Erasures included implementation
of a ground water recovery and treatment system and capping fill areas to meet
federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements. From this
landfill. The responses to comments belcv are PP. given at the public meeting and
represent NJDEP's position on August 21, 1986.
In general, the tone of the public comments was very positive. Several in-
dividuals, including Psrsippany-Troy Hills Mayor Frank Priore and Dr. Daniel Van
Abs of the Fassaic River Coalition, expressed fhst they were "pleased" and
"relieved" at the findings of the study. The Mayor stated that he realized that
excavation and removal were unreel!Ftic, and felt that the recoci:ended alter-
native was "ambitious". There were, however, some prer.r cf concern raised, and
these are summarized by subject as follows:
0 Movement of contamination off-site;
0 Sampling results and laboratory procedure;
0 Police officers' use of pistol range on-site;
0 Concerns of the Fire Department;
0 Methcne gas recovery;
0 Responsible party involvement; and
0 Other issues.
Movement of Cortrpilration off-Site
The primary concern expressed at the meeting was the possibility that
contamination was- present at the landfill but had not yet moved tbrcvph the fill
nr.d Irto the aquifer. Residents were assured that the long-term monitcrirp
program reccinrended by NJDEP would detect any such movement of contaminant?.
Comment: What if the chemical wastes were deposited OVL the InrHflll during its
"warning yf?rc" cf operation and are just now working their way down
through the 80 feet of fill?
Response: That is a possibility. ?rd the long-term monitoring program is set up
for just this reason; to detect any contatrirctlon moving into the
ground water from the landfill. This monitoring would be conducted on
s per.!-cnnual basis for 30 years.
-------
Comment: VP.S the sampling done at various levels? I'is concerned that in your
drilling, you might have drilled right through something ii\r.t(>F
-------
reasons, v;e will corduct a third round of sarcpllrjr tc confirm our
earlier results.
Conjcent: If there was laboratory interference, could the state use a different
laboratory?
Response: The record round of sampling did go to a different laboratory for just
that rceson.
Comment: Have the results of the second round of sampling on the KcmeFtesd Well
been fcrvnrded to the East Hanover Township Water Department?
Response: No, we received them two cays ago and they must go through our Duality
Assurance program. After that, they will be sent.
Coirnert: Pid NJDEP do this testing?
Response: Kc, a private laboratory conducteo the testing.
Comment: What is the time frame for the third round of f.ar.pHr.£?
Response: Seme cr.ir.ples have already been collected; the others will be collected
shortly.
Police Officer's Use of Pistol Range On-Site
Comment: As you know, the police department has a pistol range en the site. We
want "the bottom line" - are our officers safe to go onto the landfill?
Response: Of the areas we sampled, we found no significant ccntatr.ination in the
soils or aev.ifer. We are recommending additional sampling even though
we don't feel there is a problem. The only time we were ccrcerr.ed was
when we were drilling wells. The fence is primarily to keep out
children who night get in and damage the cap or pet into the leachate.
Concerns of the Fire Department
Coiraent: As Assistant Chief of fbe Fire Department, I'm concerned about a
methane fire bursting through the cap.* How ruch damage would we do to
the cap if we had to go in and put ort a irethane fire?
Response: The vents aJong the trenches would collect the methere. This is a
passive system and we don't foresee a prcbler. with methane coming
through the cap.
Comment: Is there any danger in feeing cr the site, and if not, why is there a
decontamination zone? Shorld ve decontaminate our equipment?
Response: The decontamination zone was user1 primarily during our field
investigation. It is e routine procedure to assure that while we ere
investigating the site we do not bring any ccr.tppiretion onto the site
or take any out. We assume that you would use normal fire-fighting
precautions, but there are no plans for fire-fightsrp re decontaminate
their equipment.
''•The issue of methane gas at the cite JP addressed separately in this
responsiveness summary.
-------
Comment: If there was a fire and we had to go In and put It out, is
someone we vct:ld have to notify or contact?
Response: The police know the ccnhination to the locks and in the evtnt cf a
fire, you would just go right in. We would like to be notified, but
not if It ±t going to delay you in performing jour duties.
At this point a member of the audience asked the Assistant Fire CHff if there
had been any recent fires at the site. He responded that ncr.e had been reported;
perhaps there were underground fires he was not awsre cf. Director Salkie
pointed out that the investigaticr would have revealed any underground fires, if
there had been any.
Methane Gas Recovery
Comr.ent: What are the quantities of methane g£r? The town might be interested
in recovering it for use ir the. incinerator at the sewage treatment:
facility.
Response: We believe that at tl.ir point, 14 years after the landfill operated,
most of the biological activity has already taken place, and there are
no significant levels cf r.ethare pas. We did not encounter any methane
en the surface, and only small prrur.f.s when we were drilling.
Cocment: What about the bubbling in tin: pr-rde?
Response: THp is normal anerobic activity. We monitored the ponds and found no
contaminants of any degree.
Responsible Party Involvement
General interest and concern VF.F. expressed regarding the party or parties
involved in bringing the wastes into the landfill, particularly Ciba-Geigy, and
the state's pursuit of extracting payment from the responsible party.
Comment: How dia Ciba Geigy move this material in? War it liquid, solid, in
barrels, or what?
Response: We have no records of how it got there or where it was put or. the
landfill. We have no records of whether it was dry, liquid, etc.
roufcttt: Did you find any barrels during your investigation?
Response: No.
CoTrjT'.ert: Who was responsible for v/har vas coming into the landfill? Worc.r. rt
there any standards?
Response: The problem is at that time - 1945 to 197* - vher Sharkeys operated,
there were very few Ftrnderds. The NJDEP was not formed until 1970.
(Note: The following answer was not provided ct thp public meeting. It is
expanded here to provide clarification.)
-------
lly the landfill operator is respcr.tjib.le for what comes into a
although the generators do btar the liabilities of their waste r.nd p?rt disposal
practices.
Landfill regulations began on July 1, 1958 when the New Jersey Department of
health Regulations were put lr effect under Chapter VIII of the State Sanitary
Lode. Operational procedures (ie. dust control, scavenge control etc.) were the
focus of this early regulations. When the NJDEP was fcnrfo. in 197C, Chapter VIII
was expanded. Effective July 1, 1970 the NJDEP began registration, permitting,
arV verc requesting engineering design reports including slope design, r?r?city
and categories and amount of waste accepted during the previous; ye?r. Haulers
had to be registered crd proper labeling; and "bills of lading" were to accompany
shipments of hazardous and chemical wastes. Chapter VTII continued to evolve.
In 1976 landfills began to be regulated by the type of waste that could be
accepted by waste classifications indictrpd or landfill permits.
Comment: So the only way you would ever know what was dumped is if someone came
out and admitted it?
Response: We do have scire records, but they are limited. Early records are
non-specific and it is difficult to determine IP f.circ cases what was
dumped in the past. Certainly if someone admits to disposing material,
that is a key indication of what was dumped and when.
Comment: Who will pay for this remedial r.lternative?
Response: Superfurd monies will be used. If Superfund is not reauthorized, state
funds would then be used.
Comment: What about trying to get the responsible party to pay?
Response: At this point, I can only .epy- that we would use public funds - either
Superfund or state. The enforcement process usually involves
litigation and we're not at liberty to discuss this aspect of the case.
Comment: I feel the state is responsible since they allowed this landfill to
operate.
Comment: From my experience (working with EPA) it seems like any involvement on
the part of Ciba-Geigy indicates a poter-rlel for dioxin or
dibenzo-furans. Has this possibility been investigated?
Response: We have no reason to tert for the potential presence of dioxin or
dibenzo-furans at this site. We GO hfve s list of chemicals disposed
at this location by Ciba Geipy. That list provides no indication that
the presence of dioxin or dibenzo-furar.E vcrld be expected.
Other Issues
Comment: With the recoinrerded alternative, would all five fill areas be capped?
Response: At this point, three would definitely be capped. At the other two
areas, no ccr.tppilration was found. One of these areas is a wildlife
preserve. We will study and monitor these press further. If no
-------
contamination is found, it irpy ret be necessary to cap then. (tee
NJDEP's Revised Frccn-jiifciided Alternative, p. 10)
Comment: What
the cost of the recommended ret.trlia.1. rJ ferr.ative?
Response: Approxlir?f r.ly £21 million to cap all five areas, and approximately $16
million- to cap three areas. (see NJDEP's Revised Peroinrended
Alternative, p. 10)
Comn.ent: Is NJDEP responsible for a?i 90 acres of the site?
Response: The actual landfill is larger- than 90 acres. The fill areas comprise
90 acres. Or that, 70 acres have been found tc hsve some levels of
contacination.
Comment: What is the time frame fcr tMe project?
Response: After we will receive your comments, we will prepare a responsiveness
summary, sign a Record of Decision and come up with a remediation
design. Thar whole process takes about six months. The design phase
lasts approximately one year, procuring a contractor taker approxi-
mately three ircnths, and the construction phase takes approximately two
to three years. V7e voulc hope to have the landfill closfc-crt ir about
four years.
Comment: What priority does this site have or. ycrr ?^?t?
Resporpe: Erch rr'tr is a separate project - we don't like to prioritize them. We
hope to have enough money to clean-up all of our sites.
Comment: Could v:e ever build on top of this lerdfil]?
Response: We would not recoirarend doing that. It is difficult to monitor if there
is a building on top of the area. In the event that ccrstruc.tion is
considered at any fcrrer landfill operation in New Jersey, permits and
approvals muat first be obtained from NJDEP. Pivision of Solid Waste
Management.
Comment: Ir the RI/FS you recommend the' installation of four additional
monitoring wells. Is one of these wells planned for iret Dilation in
the clay der.reFfJon found at this site.
Response: Yes, an additional ircrJtoring well is recommended to be installed into
that clay channel location.
III. Remaining Concerns from the August 21, 1986 Public Meeting
In general, the coirmurity near the Sharkey Landfill was pleased and relieved
at the results oi the KI/FS. They regarded it as good new? fcr the; ticst
part, and were especially relieved that their water supply does not appear
to be threatened. The primary concern that remains is the prfer.ti.nl for
mcvener.t of contamination off-site. The citizens and officials of the
community have been assured by NJDEP that a long-term monitorirg program
will be ir effect at the site for 30 years. Any movement of contamination
-------
10
which threatens their water supply would be detected and acted upon in a
timely irarr.er.
IV. NJDEP's Revised Recommended Alternative
The revised.- recommended alternative presented below will provide an extra
margin of control for contaminntior release from this landfill at a cost of
approximately $28.1 million. The crirr-cr.ents of this alternative are:
V. Summary of Major Written Quesficn? and Comments Received during the Public
Ccrr.ent Period and NJDEP's Responses.
-------
11
Responses to Written Comments Received
During Public Comment Period
August 13, 1986 to September 2, 1986
During this public comment period two packages of extensive
written comments were received. One package contained three
letters discussing and supporting of the same issue and will be
referred to as one commenter.
In general/ both commenters addressed the fact that the RI
adequately evaluated and characterized the nature of contamination
and hydrogeology at this site. They both agree that this site
presents no significant contamination and thus minimal risk to
the public or environment. One commenter primarily directs his
comments towards the result of the effects of the FS on the
Northwest (North of Route 280) Fill area, while the other
commenter is concerned with the overall scope of the project
and its cost-effectiveness.
The written comments have been listed according to the five
following categories:
0 Site Characteristics and Classification
0 Adherence to Regulatory Obligations
0 Effectiveness of the Remedial Alternatives
0 Recommendations for Alternatives
0 Future Site Development
Each comment will be considered prior to selecting a final
remedial alternative and is accompanied by NJDEP's and/or EPA's
response, and the position concerning long-term remediation at
this site.
Site Characteristics and Classification
Comment: The data (RI/FS) clearly indicates that the site
represents a typical municipal solid waste landfill
and identified organic compounds are ubiquitous in
household products. The leachate from the Sharkey
Landfill represents a typical municipal solid waste
leachate that should be addressed within the context
of sanitary landfill regulatory requirements.
Response: Documents show that hazardous wastes were dumped at
the site. Therefore, the landfill is considered
a hazardous waste site. Contamination has been
found at low concentrations in the shallow aquifer
and in the Rockaway and Whippany Rivers.
-------
12
Comment: Although, industrial waste may have been received by
the landfill, there is really nothing about the
leachate or contaminated groundwater which could not
be attributed to a municipal solid waste leachate.
- In fact, the character of the leachate is indicative
of an older well leached sanitary landfill which, of
course, the Sharkey's site is.
Response: The presence of hazardous wastes on-site creates a
potential for migration and possible exposure to
humans. Lack of high levels of contaminants in
leachates does not rule out presence of chemicals on
site.
Comment: In the preparation of the site wide water budget there
is an apparent error in the calculation of the volume
of groundwater moving through the clay aquitard.
Response: We do recognize that an error was made in calculating
this figure. The correct figure of 860 gpd should
replace 100 gpd on page 3-108 of the RI. We also
. agree with your evaluation that the correct volume
(rate) is still a small percentage of the total flow.
Comment: The piezometric surface contour maps for the water
bearing zone presented in the RI report are quite
unusual for a relatively high permeability, confined
aquifer and must be considered suspect.
Response: The piezometric surface contour maps were developed
using the data obtained from the field. Groundwater
level was measured at each of the 26 monitoring well
locations. The data was plotted on a scaled site map,
and interpolation was used to draw the contour
lines. The NJDEP and EPA believe that the data
substantiate the contours as shown.
Comment: Because the site is essentially a sanitary landfill,
(Ciba-Geigy Corporation generated only a tiny fraction
of the material disposed of at Sharkey's, less than
one ten thousandth of the total, with the bulk of the
remainder being municipal waste) it is highly unlikely
that it will ever contaminate drinking water supplies.
Response: The site is classified as a hazardous waste site, as
explained in prior responses. Although, no contami-
nation has been detected at present in the drinking
water supply, the site is classified as a hazardous
waste site, as explained in prior comments. A
potential release of contaminants may cause contamin-
ation of the drinking water supply in the future.
-------
13
The amount of hazardous waste dumped by Ciba-Geigy
at the site exceeds the maximum allowed in a sanitary
landfill, even though the total amount of hazardous
waste may be considered a small percentage of the
total amount of solid waste in the entire landfill.
Comment: The risk to drinking water at a more distant site
would be even smaller, since it is well established
that all groundwater transport involves substantial
dilution.
Response: We agree that the risk of contaminant exposure to
drinking water is diminished through various mechanisms
(i.e. bio-degradation, absortion, dilution). However,
consideration must be given to the degradation of
groundwater quality at the site as well as to the
risk presented at distant drinking water sources.
Adherence to Regulatory Obligations
Comment: Is the "Superfund" to be applied the closure of a
relatively innocuous sanitary landfill site?
Response: "Superfund" is not to be applied to the closure of
an "innocuous landfill site", but "Superfund" may
appropriately be used in the closure of this site.
At this site, the selected alternative was based on
the results of the RI/FS and documents supporting
the hazardous waste dumping. Sharkey Landfill is an
open dump as defined in 40 CFR Part 207, "Criteria
for Classification for Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
and Practices." RCRA, Section 4005(a), which is
relevant and appropriate to this site, states that
dumps should be closed properly. A proper closure,
including a multimedia cap as discussed in the ROD
is eligible for federal funds.
Comment: The Department's contractor excluded that option
(groundwater treatment without capping), which might
be more cost-effective than a cap because of its
perception that state landfill regulations preclude
that alternative. That perception may be incorrect
and is not dispositive as to the selection of
alternative under CERCLA.
-------
14
Response: The USEPA Feasibility Study Guidance recommends that
alternatives be developed that satisfy the five
.criteria as listed on page 2-5 of the Task 6 report
"Evaluation of Alternatives". These criteria were
followed in the study. The alternative of ground-
water treatment without capping was included in the
screening of alternatives and rejected.
Comment: The State Action Level II figures for organics in
drinking water contained in the January, 1986 NJDEP
Drinking Water Guidance would also be met by such a
10-fold dilution (downstream or away from the site).
In that regard, the decision of the contractor to
use Action Level I for the Guidance as appropriate
state standards for drinking water is clearly erroneous
as a matter of law. Existing drinking water systems
in current use throughout the state are not legally
compelled to meet Action Level I concentrations; it
makes no sense to require that the water in a landfill
do so.
Response: The use of Action Level I figures for organics in
drinking water was appropriate as a measure of com-
parison to applicable and relevant guidance. We
agree that recommending remedial action (other than
monitoring) based on Action Level I concentrations
is inappropriate. The NJDEP did not recommend
remedial action based on those levels.
Comment: The Department's contractor assumed that any landfill
closure is required by the Department to meet current
landfill closure requirements. If this view is
correct, even landfills which were closed prior
January 1, 1982 must meet the standards of N.J.A.C.
7-26 Subpart 2, which implement the State's Solid
Waste Management Act.
Response: It is NJDEP and USEPA policy to implement remedial
actions at Superfund sites that attain or exceed
the relevant and appropriate requirements of environ-
mental laws and to consider other criteria, advisories,
guidance and standards. Within this policy, NJDEP
considers current state landfill standards relevant
to this site. We do not intend to imply that all
landfills closed prior to January 1, 1982 must meet
the standards of N.J.A.C. 7-26, Subpart 2.
-------
15
Effectiveness of Remedial Alternatives
Comments: To what standard of clean-up are we to address the
remedial action?
Response: This question is not relevant here. The system at
this site is containment system to control future
migration of hazardous substances from the site. In
contrast, a clean-up standard is appropriate, for
example, when contaminated soil is removed.
For this site, discharge standards for the options
involving groundwater treatment pursuant to New
Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits
or local industrial pre-treatment standards will be
used. This remedial action addresses the objectives
identified on pages 124-125 of the Task 6 report.
Comment: How are the various alternatives to be compared so
that their effectiveness in meeting the standards can
be judged?
Response: For a containment system, the alternatives are compared
to each other based on reliability, implementability,
safety, environmental and public health impact,
institutional requirements and cost. The comparision
is used in fulfilling the remedial objectives and
the requirements of the law.
Comment: The cost-effectiveness analysis presented in the
Feasibility Study does not conform to the methodology
presented in the Cooperative Agreement for the site
dated December 26, 1983.
Response: The Cooperative Agreement (CA) between NJDEP and
USEPA pertains to a preliminary scope of work and
costs, which are subject to revision and negotiation.
The methodology proposed in the CA may not reflect
the actual method used by the contrator since the
award of a contract is based in the actual proposal
of the contractor and subsequent negotiations between
the contractor and NJDEP. The actual cost-effective-
ness methodology used complies with the requirements
of the National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR 300.
Comment: The method by which the effectiveness ratings have
been assigned is clearly subjective and arbitrary,
and lacks a sound technical basis.
-------
16
Response: The effectiveness ratings were assigned in a consistent
manner and reflect sound professional judgment. The
effectiveness ratings are one factor among many others
used to select the remedial alternative.
Comment: The suggested remedy does not meet the cost-effective-
ness requirements of the National Contingency Plan.
Response: The Alternative 5-A(b) complies with the cost-effec-
tiveness requirements of the NCP.
Comment: Certainly, neither CERCLA nor the NCP require that
the cost-effectiveness alternative identified in the
FS by the contractor be adopted. To the contrary,
the lead agency has a legal obligation to make its
own determination of cost-effectiveness, and select
the alternative which adequately protects the public
interest at the lowest cost. If a remedial alternative
was selected based on the ordinary cost-effectiveness
method used by the contractor, the decision would be
arbitrary and capricious and out of keeping with
the standards for decision making under well understood
principles of federal and state administrative law.
Response: USEPA made a determination of the cost-effectiveness
of the remedial alternative which adequately protects
the public interest at the lowest cost. USEPA in
consultation with NJDEP used the RI/FS as a basis
for selecting the appropriate remedy for this CERCLA
site. In addition, the decision was based on the
comments received during the public comment period.
Recommendations for Alternatives
Comment: It is the position of the commenter that the property
(Northwest (N) Fill) should not be affected by the
selected remedial alternative or long-term site
clean-up and excluded from the effect of any further
action by the NJDEP and USEPA. We also request that
this parcel be removed from the Sharkey Landfill
designation on the NPL.
Response: Based on the information available, the Northwest
(N) Fill may not appropriately be removed from the
Sharkey Landfill designation on the NPL. As explained
in the ROD, this site presents a threat of release
of hazardous substances. It is unlikely that this
property can be excluded from the selected alternative
-------
17
- for remediation unless the owner presents USEPA with
a plan for the use of the property that clearly
provides a level of protection equal to or greater
than the selected remedial alternative.
Comment: .The data (RI/FS) clearly indicates that the site
represents a typical municipal solid waste landfill.
We concur with the conclusion of the RI report that
this site represents minimal risk to the public health
and environment and is clearly a candidate for a "No
Action" or a "Minimal Action" remedial program.
Response: The location of the site, the length of time required
to implement corrective action for a future release
and the potential threat to the public health were
considered in the selection of alternatives as
explained in previous responses. For these reasons,
a No Action or Minimal Action Alternative will not
provide adequate protection for human health and the
environment.
Comment: In the absence of a quantitative Risk Assessment,
the FS has failed to demonstrate a significant risk
to the environment or to the public health. .Accordingly,
selection of a costly remedial action has not been
shown to provide demonstrable benefit to the environment
or public health and is not supported by the evidence.
Response: While the contaminants detected at present at the site
pose little or no environmental and public health
risk at current concentrations, there is a potential
threat of release which cannot be quantified. Since
documentation shows hazardous waste was disposed of
at the site, there exists a threat of a future release
of these substances. The selected alternative addres-
ses the potential threat of release.
Comment: Since the site poses no substantial present risk,
relatively modest remedial measures are all that is
required, and the expenditure of vast sums at the
site would be wasteful. The best approach would be
one involving site stabilization (North and South
sites to prevent erosion) and access control (deleting
requirement for access control at the two Northwest
and Southwest sites) coupled with continued monitoring
and contingency plans for capping or groundwater
treatment, re. a modification of Alternative 2.
Response: It is agreed that the expenditure of vast sums of
money at this site would be wasteful. The selected
alternative is consistent with health and environ-
mental concerns and not excessive in cost.
-------
18
As explained in previous responses, the site has
been classified as a hazardous waste site and the
Minimal Action Alternative will not adequately pro-
±ect human health and the environment. Furthermore,
in the long-term monitoring program designed to sample
every six months, a potential release of contaminants
could be detected six months after its occurrence.
After such a release of contamination was detected,
the process for construction of a cap would take
three years to complete. A contingency plan which
would take three and a half years to be implemented
is not acceptable because of the risk posed to the
public health and the environment.
Comment: No ones interest is served by the expenditure of
greater amounts of money at a particular site than
are necessary to protect fully the health and the
safety of the public, whether those funds are provided
from "Superfund" or by potentially responsible parties.
Response: We agree.
Comment: A pump and treat alternative without capping deserves
favorable consideration in light of the possibility
that future monitoring would show that additional
remedial measures are needed. The capital cost and
operating cost calculated for the pump and threat
portion of Alternative 5 (FS pp B-12, B-13) suggest
that the total cost of collecting and treatment might
be sustantially less than the cost of capping along,
depending on the extent of the pumping program and
the degree of treatment.
Response: As explained in the ROD, the closure of Sharkey Land-
fill is governed by RCRA. Closure requires a cap in
accordance with the proper requirements. The imple-
mentation of groundwater treatment without capping
is an incomplete measure which will allow water
infiltrate through the landfill, carrying potential
contamination to the aquifer.
Comment: It is true that the quantity of groundwater requiring
treatment of the entire site would be greater under
an alternative involving no-cap than the contractors
estimate for Alternative 5 with a cap. However, the
-------
19
cost would not necessarily be greater. The RI
indicates that concentration levels are the highest
at the North Fill site (RI pp 3-114 to 3-117).
Accordingly, if pumping ever became necessary, it may
. be needed only at the North site.
Response: The alternative of treating the groundwater with no-
cap not only increase the quantity of groundwater to
be treated, but may carry contamination to the
shallow aquifer. The alternative of no capping is
not as reliable as the selected alternative.
In addition, as explained in prior responses, the
entire site is considered to contain hazardous
wastes. Although concentrations of hazardous sub-
stances were higher in the North Fill area, the
other four areas cannot be excluded for groundwater
treatment.
Comment: A capping alternative is unnecessary and would be
excessively expensive. Before any cap alternative is
adopted, the Department should take into account the
. degree to which Alternative 2 reduced the need for
Alternative 3. In the event that a cap remedy is
choosen, the Department should restrict capping to
the North and South Fill sites. Imposing an expensive
capping remedy at the Northwest and Southwest sites
can only be justified if, following the investigation,
it could be said that they properly form a portion
at the Superfund site. In addition, the Department
should defer a choice between a clay cap and the
less costly synthetic cap until the design phase.
Response: As stated before, the use of a cap is necessary for
the proper closure of the entire site, and capping
cannot be restricted to the North and South Fills.
Photographs show fill activity in the Northwest Fill
until somewhere between 1961 to 1966. During this
period, hazardous materials from Cieba-Geigy are
believed to have been disposed of in an undefined
area of the site. Southwest Fill was used by the
Department of Transportation to dump excavated
material containing hazardous waste from the North-
west Fill during the construction of Route 280 from
1971 to 1974.
In addition, the cap with synthetic liner was consid-
ered in the evaluation of alternatives. This cap is
not as reliable as the clay cap. A synthetic liner
does not meet the requirements for a hazardous waste
site.
-------
20
Comment: Adopting an alternative which may not withstand legal
scrutiny could result in either (i) a substantial
delay in implementing a remedial program for the site
or (ii) the inability of the government to obtain
full, much less prompt, cost recovery because an
unnecessarily expensive alternative was picked.
Response: The alternative of capping and treating the groundwater
meets all applicable requirements and is the most cost-
effective alternative. The selected remedial alter-
native satisfies the requirements of RCRA and the NCP.
There is no pre-enforcement review of action taken
under CERCLA. Therefore, no delay or inability of
the government to obtain full cost recovery is
expected.
Comment: One commenter reported that at the August 21, 1986
Public Meeting, he questioned Mr. Richard C. Salkie,
Acting Director of the Division of Hazardous Site
Mitigation in NJDEP, about capping option the NJDEP
favored (all five areas or just the three with
contamination).
Response: Director Salkie did not reply, as stated in this com-
menter1 s follow-up letter, that the Dowel Associates
portion of the landfill was not being considered for
remediation activity. Director Salkie did respond
that three areas were likely to be capped.
Two areas were referred to by Dr. Kehrberger. He
said no contamination was found in the Wildlife Pre-
serve (Southwest Fill) and the Northwest (N) Fill.
USEPA does not agree with the conclusion of Dr.
Kehrberger. The results of the RI/FS indicate con-
tamination in all areas; in Southwest Fill, concen-
trations are almost at standard levels.
Future Development
Comment: The proper development for this site (Northwest (N)
Fill) provides superior environmental control for
the property in question (Block 768, Lot 2 Parsippany
Troy Hills) than could ever be achieved by capping.
-------
21
Response: There is no indication that the plan submitted for
this development would provide the measure of protect-
ion over this entire fill area to control the potential
for contamination release.
Comment: It is clear that the above referenced RI/FS did not
conclude that the commentator's site is unsuitable
for construction. In short, we would appreciate the
NJDEP's consideration of the issuance of a letter to
the commentator indicating that there is no impediment
or objection to development of the site as proposed
by the commentator and that further construction as
proposed by the commentator will not interfere with
the NJDEP's investigation and enforcement activities
regarding the site.
Response: Based on the determination that this property (North-
west North Fill) represents a threat of release of
hazardous substances requiring proper closure, this
site is unsuitable for development and use as proposed.
------- |