United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-91/159
September 1991
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
Chemsol, NJ
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION i. REPORT NO. 2.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R02-91/159
4. TMemdSubWe
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Chemsol, NJ
First Remedial Action
7. Au*or(»)
0. P»rformin80ro«lnli«1lonN«me«nd Address
12. Sponsoring Orgsnbstton Nsme end Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
3. Rectpienrs Accession No.
5. Report Dsto
09/20/91
6.
8* PWfOHiUiiy Or0wiiZBoon RopC No.
10. ProdcVTuk/Work UnH No.
11. ContracKO or Gnnt(G) No.
(C)
(G)
13. Type of Report* Period Co wed
800/000
14.
15. Supple
iiyNo
16. Abstract (UmH: 200 words)
The 40-acre Chemsol site is a former solvent recovery and waste reprocessing facility
in Piscataway Township, Middlesex County, New Jersey. Land use in the area is
predominantly commercial and residential, with an onsite marshy area that may be
considered a wetlands. The site overlies a bedrock aquifer that is used as a
regional drinking water source. In addition, three streams are located onsite which
discharge to nearby Bound Brook. From the 1950's until 1964, Chemsol, Inc.,
recovered and reprocessed solvents and materials received from various companies
through activities such as mixing, blending, and distillation. The site was closed
in 1964 after a series of industrial accidents, explosions, and fires. In 1978, the
site was purchased by Tang Realty Corporation. In 1984, as a result of previous
accidents, the State required Tang Realty to investigate site contamination and to
develop a remedial plan. In 1988, Tang Realty removed 3,700 cubic yards of
PCB-contaminated soil and discovered several thousand small (less than 1 gallon)
containers of unidentified wastes. In October 1991, the drums were removed and
disposed of offsite. Between 1980 and 1990, sampling of residential wells indicated
the presence of organic contaminants and PCBs. As a result, the township extended
(See Attached Page)
NJ
17. Document Amtytte a. Descriptor*
Record of Decision - Chemsol,
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Medium: gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, toluene, xylenes), other organics
,.„__ ,_^ (pesticides, phenols), metals (arsenic, chromium, lead)
bu ldBntilwfwQp0fv£nd»M Twnw
c. COSATI Reid/Group
18. AvaUabitty Statement
1C. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Ctan (TN* Page)
None
21. No. of Page*
62
22. Price
(See AMSI-ZM.18)
See Instruction* en Rftrent
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly KTIS-35)
t of Co mnw FCA
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-91/159
Chemsol, NJ
First Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
municipal water service to the affected area. This Record of Decision (ROD) provides
an interim remedy to restrict the offsite migration of highly contaminated ground
water. Subsequent actions will address ground water contamination at a depth of
greater than 130 feet, offsite ground water contamination, as well as air and soil
contamination. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the ground water are VOCs
including benzene, toluene, and xylenes; other organics including pesticides and
phenols; and metals including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this interim remedy includes installing a ground water
collection trench, which will extend from the surface of the site down to approximately
10 to 15 feet below the surface; installing three ground water extraction wells to a
depth of 130 feet; constructing an onsite treatment plant and treating contaminated
ground water using air stripping, biological filtration, and activated carbon
adsorption; treating and disposing sludge generated by the treatment processes offsite;
discharging the treated ground water onsite via an above-ground pipe to the stream
flowing along the eastern property boundary; and conducting ground and surface water
monitoring to measure the potential migration of hazardous substances from the site.
The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $7,700,000, which includes
an annual O&M cost of $915,000 for 5 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Chemical-specific ground water clean-up goals are
based on the more stringent of State or Federal standards and include arsenic 0.50 ug/1
(State), benzene 1 ug/1 (State), chromium 50 ug/1 (State), lead 15 ug/1 (Federal),
phenols 4,000 ug/1 (Federal), toluene 1,000 ug/1 (Federal), and xylenes 44 ug/1
(State) .
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name: Chemsol, Inc.
Location/State: Piscataway, Middlesex Co., New Jersey
EPA Region: II
HRS Score (date): 42.69 (August 1982)
NPL Rank (date): 380 (March 1991)
ROD
Date Signed: September 20, 1991
Selected Interim Remedy
Groundwater: Installation of a groundwater extraction
system on-site and construction of a
groundwater treatment plant to treat
collected groundwater prior to discharge to
an on-site stream.
Capital Cost: $ 3,833,000
Annual O & M: $ 915,000 (for 5 years)
Present Worth: $ 7,700,000
LEAD
Remedial, EPA
Primary Contact (phone): James S. Haklar (212-264-8736)
Secondary Contact (phone): Janet Feldstein (212-264-0613)
WASTE
Type: Groundwater - Presence of volatile organic
compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds,
pesticides and metals.
Medium: Groundwater to a depth of approximately 130
feet.
Origin: Not ascertained at this time (currently under
investigation).
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION
CHEMSOL, INC.
BITE NAME AND LOCATION
Chemsol, Inc.
Piscataway, Middlesex County, New Jersey
STATEMENT OP BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected interim remedial
action for the Chemsol, Inc. site, which was chosen in accordance
with the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 and, to
the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan. This decision document explains the
factual and legal basis for selecting the interim remedy for this
site.
The State of New Jersey concurs with the selected interim remedy.
The information supporting this interim remedial action decision
is contained in the administrative record for this site.
ASSESSMENT OF THE BITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this Record of Decision, may present an imminent and
substantial threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OP THE SELECTED REMEDY
The interim remedy described in this document represents the
first component of a permanent remedy for the Chemsol site. It
addresses highly contaminated groundwater underlying the site to
a depth of approximately 130 feet. The objective of the interim
action is to restrict the migration of this contaminated
groundwater until a final remedial action can be implemented.
The major components of the selected remedy include the
following:
o Installation of a groundwater collection and extraction
system for removal of contaminated groundwater from the
perched zone and upper bedrock aquifer;
o Installation of an on-site treatment plant to treat the
groundwater;
-------
o Disposal of the treated groundwater in an on-site
surface water body; and
o Operation and maintenance of the components of this
interim remedy and environmental monitoring to ensure
continued achievement of the objectives of the interim
remedy.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected interim remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that
are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the extent
practicable given the limited scope of the action, and is cost
effective. Requirements which cannot be achieved by the interim
remedy may be waived pursuant to Section 121 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as
amended, and will be addressed as part of the final remedial
action for the site. Although this interim action is not
intended to fulfill the statutory mandate for permanence and
treatment to the maximum extent practicable, it does utilize
treatment technologies and thus is in furtherance of that
mandate.
The statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that
reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principle element is
also partially addressed by the selected response action.
Subsequent actions are planned to fully address these statutory
preferences as well as the threats posed by conditions at the
site.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining
on the site above health-based levels, a review will be conducted
within five years after commencement of the remedial action to
ensure that it continues to provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment.
istantine Sidamon-Ertstoff £> / Date
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA Region II
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
CHEMSOL, INC. SITE
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Chemsol, Inc. site is located at the end of Fleming Street,
on Lots 1-A and 1-B of Block Number 229A in the Township of
Piscataway, Middlesex County, New Jersey. Interstate 287 is
located approximately one-half mile south of the site, and the
site is bounded on the south by the Reading Railroad right-of-way
(See Figure 1). The site covers approximately 40 acres, and is
divided into two main lots. Lot 1-A is approximately 27 acres in
area, while Lot 1-B covers approximately 13 acres (See Figure 2).
Currently, there are no buildings on the site; however, three
concrete foundations or slabs are present on Lot 1-B.
Land use in the vicinity of the site is commercial and
residential. Single family residences are located immediately
west and southwest of the site. Industrial and retail/wholesale
businesses are located south and east of the site. An apartment
complex is located north of the site.
Three surface water bodies (streams) are located on the site (See
Figure 2) which are tributaries to the Bound Brook. The Bound
Brook is classified by the State of New Jersey as FW-2 Non-Trout
waters.
Although the site does not lie within a floodplain, there is a
marshy area on site that could potentially be classified as
wetlands.
Groundwater underlying the site exists in two zones. A perched
water zone exists at depths of less than five feet. The second
zone is identified as the upper bedrock aquifer; the water table
of the upper bedrock aquifer is at depths of approximately ten to
thirty feet. The bedrock aquifer is classified as "GW-2" by the
State of New Jersey. This zone is a regional water supply
resource.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The site was operated as a solvent recovery and waste
reprocessing facility in the 1950's through approximately 1964.
Chemsol would receive material (such as acetone, ethyl alcohol
and lacquers) from companies; this material would then be
recovered or reprocessed through activities such as mixing,
blending and distillation. The facility was closed after a
series of industrial accidents, explosions and fires. In 1978,
the site was purchased by Tang Realty Corporation. In September
1983, it was placed on the National Priorities List.
-------
in 1984, after amending a previous Administrative Order, the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) entered
into an Administrative Consent Order with Tang Realty requiring
that Tang Realty perform an investigation to evaluate
contamination at the site and develop a remedial action plan for
the site.
Between 1980 and 1990, approximately 40 groundwater monitoring
wells were installed by Tang Realty on site or downgradient from
the site. Sampling from these monitoring wells indicated that
groundwater was contaminated with organic compounds.
Furthermore, sampling and analyses of soils (performed between
1980 and 1987) revealed the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and organic compounds.
In the Summer of 1988, Tang Realty removed approximately 3,700
cubic yards of PCB-contaminated soils for off-site disposal.
During the soil excavations for removal of PCB-contaminated
soils, several thousand small (less than 1 gallon) containers of
unknown substances were discovered. These unknown substances
(which were stored in a trailer on site) are currently being
addressed (for off-site disposal) through a separate removal
action by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Sampling was conducted by Tang Realty and the Middlesex County
Health Department at private (residential) wells located
downgradient of the site (in the "Nova Ukraine" area of
Piscataway). The results of sampling performed in January 1990
indicated the presence of organic contaminants in residential
wells. The Township extended municipal water service into the
Nova Ukraine area during the Fall of 1990. In February 1991, EPA
sampled residences in the Nova Ukraine area that were known not
to have requested connection to the public water supply. The
analytical results from this sampling indicated the presence of
organic contaminants in two of three wells. In May 1991, EPA
provided the residents with the analytical results from the
residential well sampling. In coordination with EPA, the
Township has recommended to the remaining private well users in
the Nova Ukraine area that they connect to the public water
supply.
On September 4, 1990, EPA issued a notice letter to Tang Realty,
identifying Tang Realty as a potentially responsible party (PRP).
In the Fall of 1990, EPA and the NJDEP agreed that EPA should
perform site investigations and federally fund the remainder of
the investigatory work.
EPA retained a contractor to perform a Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to assess the nature and extent of
contamination at the site and to evaluate remedial alternatives.
-------
During RI/FS planning activities, EPA determined that a Focused
Feasibility Study (FFS) should be conducted to assess interim
remedial actions for groundwater.
Based on the results of the FFS, an interim remedy is being
selected in this document. The site-wide RI/FS activities will
be conducted concurrently with design and implementation of this
interim remedy.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
A public availability session was held on June 11, 1991. At this
session, representatives from EPA answered questions about the
site and described the remedial activities being performed there.
The Focused Feasibility Study Report and the Proposed Plan
(identifying the preferred interim remedy) were released to the
public for comment on July 15, 1991. These two documents were
made available to the public in the administrative record files
maintained at the EPA Docket Room in Region II and at the Kennedy
Library in Piscataway, New Jersey. The documents were also made
available to the public at an information repository maintained
at the Westergard Library in Piscataway. The notice of
availability for these two documents was published in the "Home
News" on July 15, 1991. A public comment period on the documents
was held from July 15, 1991 to August 14, 1991. In addition, a
public meeting was held on August 1, 1991. At this meeting,
representatives from EPA answered questions about the site and
the interim remedial alternatives under consideration. A
response to the comments received during this period is included
in the Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this Record of
Decision (ROD).
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION WITHIN SITE STRATEGY
EPA is addressing the Chemsol site in two phases and has
organized the RI/FS activities accordingly. The first phase
includes an FFS to evaluate interim actions to restrict the off-
site migration of highly contaminated groundwater to a depth of
approximately 130 feet. The second phase consists of a
comprehensive RI/FS to address deeper and off-site groundwater
contamination, as well as air and soil contamination.
The interim remedy selected in this ROD is the first planned
response action for the site. It will be consistent with any
future remedy which EPA will select for the site. Restricting
the migration of contaminated groundwater will be a necessary
component of any future remedy.
-------
Although this interim remedy is not fully protective in and of
itself/ it is expected to be effective in temporarily reducing
the further migration of contaminated groundwater off the site
until a permanent remedy can be implemented.
SUMMARY OF BITE CHARACTERISTICS
EPA's contractor performed FFS activities which included the
following:
o Assessment of well integrity;
o Measurement of groundwater levels;
o Hydrogeologic testing to determine aquifer
characteristics; and
o Sampling of 22 existing wells to determine groundwater
quality.
In addition, a bench-scale treatability study was performed to
evaluate appropriate methods for treating the groundwater.
Site Geology
The results of the FFS indicate that the site stratigraphy
consists of the overburden (soil) ranging in thickness from 2 to
3 feet, underlain by weathered bedrock at 3 to 20 feet below
grade. Fractured bedrock underlies the weathered bedrock. (See
Figure 3).
Groundwater at the site occurs in two zones: a perched zone
exists in the overburden and the upper bedrock aquifer exists in
the bedrock. The perched zone is located at the interface of the
soil and top of weathered bedrock. This zone is generally found
at a depth of less than 5 feet in monitoring wells installed in
the center of the site. Groundwater flow in this zone is to the
northeast.
The upper bedrock aquifer occurs in the weathered bedrock and in
interconnected fractures in the bedrock. The water table of the
upper bedrock aquifer occurs at depths of approximately 10 to 30
feet beneath ground surface. The fractures in the bedrock
provide flow paths through which the water moves.
Historically, groundwater in this zone was found to flow to the
southeast. This flow pattern may have resulted from the
influence of a nearby production well. Results of the FFS
indicate that groundwater flow is currently toward a trough-like
feature on the site, with a westward flow component.
-------
The perched groundwater may be hydraulically connected to the
groundwatsr in the bedrock by low primary porosity and fractures
through the weathered bedrock zone. As a result, the weathered
bedrock is not expected to act as a barrier to the downward
migration of contaminants.
Groundwater Contamination
As stated p. usly, two groundwater zones have been identified
at the site: perched groundwater and the upper bedrock
aquifer. During che FFS, samples were taken from 22 existing
groundwater monitoring wells: five in the perched groundwater
zone and 17 in the upper bedrock aquifer (See Figure 4).
Sampling results from the wells demonstrated severe contamination
of both the perched groundwater and the upper bedrock aquifer.
The analytical results from the groundwater sampling efforts are
discussed below.
The perched groundwater zone and upper bedrock aquifer are
contaminated with a variety of hazardous substances. Tables 1
through 8 provide a summary of the analytical results for the
perched groundwater wells (the "OW" wells) and the upper bedrock
aquifer (the "TW" wells and well "C-l"). Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) were detected at a maximum of 516,380 micrograms
per liter (ug/1). Semi-volatile organic compounds were also
detected (maximum 11,394 ug/1), as well as pesticides (maximum
1.6 ug/1). Furthermore, the analyses indicate the presence of
metals in the groundwater (such as Barium at a maximum
concentration of 2,830 ug/1 and Lead at a maximum concentration
of 33.4 ug/1).
Additionally, while the levels of total volatile organics were
higher in the upper bedrock aquifer wells than in the perched
water wells, total semi-volatile organic compounds were found to
be higher in the perched water wells than in the upper bedrock
aquifer wells (See Figures 5 through 8).
The FFS indicated that hazardous substances have been released
into the groundwater at the site. Furthermore, based on data
collected from off-site monitoring wells, such hazardous
substances have migrated and continue to migrate off of the site.
The presence of the many hazardous substances, pollutants and
contaminants in the groundwater underlying the site poses a
threat of continued release of such substances into the
environment.
Treatabilitv Study
Three treatment processes were selected for bench scale testing.
These included air stripping, activated carbon adsorption and
UV (ultraviolet)/chemical oxidation.
-------
The primary objective of the treatability study was to generate
sufficient information for developing conceptual treatment
alternatives and to identify any additional testing needs which
would be required to provide design criteria for a remedial
groundwater treatment system at the Chemsol site. Findings of
this study include the following:
o Air stripping is effective at removing most of the
groundwater VOCs and is recommended for VOC treatment
at the Chemsol site. In addition, a vapor phase carbon
system (with a dryer and condenser to capture free
product) would be incorporated with all alternatives
using *ir stripping as an element of the treatment
system.
o Pretreatment prior to air stripping would produce a
chemical sludge which would likely be hazardous due to
the high concentrations of many organics present in the
groundwater. The inorganics present in the groundwater
may cause scaling of the air stripper media. However,
the cost of periodic replacement of the media or the
frequency of acid wash to clean the media would be less
costly than disposal of hazardous .sludge.
o Based on an evaluation of groundwater data and the
results of a literature review, biological treatment is
expected to be effective at treating the site
groundwater.
o Carbon was effective at treating the air stripper
effluent, but the degree of treatment necessary to
polisn a bio-treated effluent should be determined.
o UV/chemical oxidation did not show any ability to treat
the contaminated groundwater.
In summary, the FFS results indicate the following:
o Groundwater down to a depth of at least 130 feet is
heavily contaminated with hazardous substances,
including volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds,
pesticides, and inorganic compounds; and
o Groundwater in off-site monitoring wells is
contaminated with hazardous substances similar in type
and/or identical to those which were found in the
groundwater at the site.
-------
The FFS did not fully define the extent of contamination in off-
site areas, the lower bedrock aquifer and in on-site soils,
surface water bodies and potential wetlands. Such
characterization will be the subject of the site-wide RI/FS, to
be conducted during and/or after implementation of this interim
remedy.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A qualitative risk assessment was conducted by EPA through its
contractor during the FFS to evaluate the health risks posed by
migration of contaminated groundwater off the site. The data
collected during the FFS revealed that at least 74 chemicals
exist in the groundwater underlying the site (See Tables 1-7).
Many of the chemicals detected in the groundwater are known
carcinogens in animals and are suspected human carcinogens (e.g.
chloroform, 1,2-dichloroethane and methylene chloride). Other
chemicals detected at the site are known human carcinogens (e.g.
vinyl chloride, arsenic and benzene).
Many of the hazardous substances detected in the groundwater at
the site were present at levels which far exceed Federal and
State standards and guidelines for groundwater. In particular,
the levels of numerous volatile organic compounds exceed the
Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) and the New Jersey MCLs by orders of magnitude
(See Table 9). In addition, the data collected to date
demonstrate that groundwater contaminants have migrated off the
site.
The qualitative risk assessment identified pathways through which
humans may be exposed to contaminated groundwater. The potential
human exposure pathways include direct contact with groundwater,
ingestion of groundwater, and inhalation of contaminants present
in the groundwater. Additional potential human exposure pathways
include direct contact and ingestion of surface water and
sediments contaminated by the groundwater.
The qualitative risk assessment and the FFS results indicate that
the conditions at the site pose an unacceptable risk to public
health, welfare and the environment.
In addition, there will be a continued threat of migration of
contaminated groundwater from the site absent the implementation
of remedial action. The interim remedial action selected in this
ROD will mitigate, for the short term, the unacceptable risk
posed by the migration of contaminated groundwater from the site.
-------
The interim remedy identified in this ROD will not achieve the
level of protection for the public health, welfare or the
environment required by the Comprehensive Environmental-Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, for a final
remedial action. It will also not achieve the requisite
reduction in toxicity, mobility and volume of hazardous
substances required by that statute. The interim remedy,
however, will be a component of a final remedy for the site that
will ultimately be fully protective of public health and the
environment.
In summary, actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances
from this site, if not addressed by implementing the interim
remedy selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare or the
environment.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives analyzed for the interim action are presented below.
All alternatives discussed below have operation and maintenance
(0 & M) costs are based on the five year expected duration of the
interim remedy. "Months to Implement" includes the time
estimated for design and construction of each alternative.
Alternative 1; No Action
Capital Cost: $ 16,000
Annual 0 & M
Costs: $ 269,000
Present Worth (PW): $ 1,153,000
Months to Implement: 4
The Superfund regulations require that the No Action alternative
be evaluated at every site to establish a baseline for
comparison. Under this alternative, .EPA-would take no interim
action at the site to restrict off-site migration of contaminated
groundwater. The No Further Action alternative includes periodic
monitoring of groundwater (through use of both on-site and
residential wells) and surface water. It should be noted that
the capital costs of implementing this alternative include
surveying the residential wells and developing a sampling and
analysis plan.
8
-------
Alternative 2 : Groundwater Extraction. Treatment and Disposal
Through Discharge of the Treated Groundwater to an On-Site
e Water Body
Capital Cost: $ 3,833,000
Annual O & M Cost: $ 915,000 (for 5 years)
Present Worth: $ 7,700,000
Months to Implement: 28
Major features of this alternative include: installation of a
groundvater extraction system on site and construction of a
groundwater treatment plant to treat collected groundwater prior
to discharge to a stream at the eastern boundary of the site
(identified as a tributary to the Bound Brook) .
On-site and off-site groundwater and on-site surface water
monitoring would be performed to determine the effectiveness of
the system.
Based on a conceptual design of the extraction system, it is
anticipated that the extraction system would consist of
approximately three wells in the 30-foot to 130-foot range.
These wells would each extract groundwater at a rate of
approximately . 10 gallons per minute.
Additionally, an interceptor trench would be used to collect
shallow groundwater in the perched zone.
For costing purposes, it is assumed that the treatment plant
would consist of the following processes: air stripping,
biological treatment, sedimentation, filtration and activated
carbon adsorption. An effluent pipe would then convey the
treated groundwater to the stream. Additionally, it is assumed
that, during testing of the constructed system, the treated
effluent would temporarily be discharged to the sewer system.
For costing purposes, it is also assumed that the sludge
generated by the treatment process would be non-hazardous. This
sludge would be dewatered prior to disposal off site. If found
to be hazardous, this sludge will be handled in accordance with
applicable Federal and State regulations. Please see the
discussion under the Summary of Comparative Analysis of
Alternatives regarding compliance with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) .
As required by NJDEP, EPA will be performing an 8-week surface
water sampling program to collect water quality data for the
previously mentioned on-site stream. This data will be used by
NJDEP to develop final discharge limitations.
-------
However, since this data is not yet available, EPA used the NJDEP
surface water quality standards to prepare the FFS and, based on
a treatability study, a conceptual design and cost estimate of
the best available technology for treating the groundwater was
developed. Should any NJDEP-develoyed limit not be technically
achievable within the range of the system identified in the FFS
and ROD, this limit may be waived pursuant to CERCLA Section
121(d)(4) for this interim measure.
Alternative 3: Groundwater Extraction. Treatment and Disposal
Through On-Site Reinfection of the Treated Groundwater Back into
the Ground
Capital Cost: $ 5,601,000
Annual O & M Cost: $ 1,015,000 (for 5 years)
Present Worth: $ 9,891,000
Months to Implement: 32
The extraction system for this alternative is identical to that
described for Alternative 2. For costing purposes, it is assumed
that the treatment plant would consist of the following
processes: air stripping, biological treatment, sedimentation,
chemical softening, filtration, activated carbon adsorption and
ultraviolet disinfection. On-site and off-site groundwater and
on-site surface water monitoring would be performed to determine
the effectiveness of the system.
Additionally, it is assumed that, during testing of the
constructed system, the treated effluent would be temporarily
discharged to the sewer system. The treatment plant would be
designed to meet Federal and State groundwater quality standards.
As with Alternative 2, it is assumed that the sludge generated by
the treatment process would be non-hazardous. This sludge would
be dewatered prior to disposal off site. If found to be
hazardous, this sludge will be handled in accordance with
applicable Federal and State regulations (see discussion below*
under the Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
regarding compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements).
Based on a conceptual design of the reinjection system, it is
anticipated that the reinjection system would be comprised of
approximately 9 reinjection wells (three groups of three wells),
with reinjection occurring at depths of approximately 400 to 450
feet.
10
-------
Alternative 4: Groundwater Extraction. Treatment and Disposal
yhrouah Discharge of the Treated Groundwater to the p^bi^c^y
Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
Capital Cost: $ 2,342,000
Annual O & M Cost: $ 805,000 (for 5 years)
Present Worth: $ 5,744,000
Months to Implement: 20
The groundwater extraction system for this alternative is
identical to that proposed for Alternatives 2 and 3. For costing
purposes, it is assumed that the treatment plant would consist r r
an air stripping process. On-site and off-site groundwater r
on-site surface water monitoring would be performed to detenu, ~
the effectiveness of the system. The treatment system for this
alternative will be designed to meet Federal, State and Local
pretreatment requirements.
The treated groundwater will be conveyed via a discharge pipe to
the sanitary sewer system leading to the Middlesex County
Utilities Authority (MCUA).
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The selected alternative is to take interim action at the site by
implementing Alternative 2. This alternative is a necessary
component of any permanent future remedy for the site and would
appear to provide the best balance of trade-offs with respect to
the criteria that EPA uses to evaluate alternatives.
This section profiles the performance of the selected alternative
against the criteria which apply to this, interim action, .10ting
how it compares to the other options under consideration.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment: This
criterion addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate
protection and describes how risks posed through each pathway are
eliminated or controlled through treatment, engineering controls
or institutional controls.
Alternative 1 would not be protective of human health and the
environment since contaminants in the shallow groundwater would
continue to migrate off site.
It is expected that Alternatives 2 and 4 would protect human
health and the environment in the short term by reducing further
the off-site migration of contaminants in the groundwater until a
final remedy is in place.
11
-------
Due to the complex hydrogeology at the site, additional
information would be necessary to evaluate the protectiveness of
Alternative 3, since reinjection of the treated groundwater could
either have a positive or negative effect on the migration of
contaminated groundwater off the site. This additional
information will be obtained through the activities associated
with the site-wide RI/FS.
Compliance With ARARs; This criterion addresses whether or not a
remedy will meet all of the ARARs of Federal and State
environmental statutes (other than CERCLA) and/or provide grounds
for invoking a waiver.
There are several types of ARARs: action-specific, chemical-
specific, and location-specific. Action-specific ARARs are
technology or activity-specific requirements or limitations
related to various activities. Chemical-specific ARARs are
usually numerical values which establish the amount or
concentrations of a chemical that may be found in, or discharged
to, the ambient environment.
Location-specific requirements are restrictions placed on the
concentrations of hazardous substances or the conduct of
activities solely because they occur in a special location.
Section 121 (d)(4) of CERCLA provides that EPA may select a
remedial action that does not attain ARARs where the remedial
action selected is only a part of a total remedial action that
will achieve such ARARs when completed. For example, since
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 constitute interim actions which are part
of a total remedial action, final cleanup levels for groundwater
do not have to be achieved, since final groundwater cleanup will
be achieved as part of a final remedial action for the site.
However, certain action-specific and location-specific
requirements, discussed below, will be attained as part of
implementation of Alternatives 2, 3 or 4.
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 will comply with the Federal Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements and State
requirements for storage, transportation and disposal of
hazardous materials. Specifically, the residuals generated
through operation of the treatment systems will comply with RCRA
and State hazardous materials requirements. Additionally, the
treatment plant for this alternative (as well as for Alternatives
3 and 4) will be designed and operated in compliance with Federal
and State air emissions requirements.
12
-------
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 will also comply with Executive Order
11990 pertaining to protection of wetlands, the Endangered
Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.
With respect to the discharge of treated effluent, as discussed
previously for Alternative 2, should any NJDEP-developed effluent
limitation for discharge to the on-site stream not be technically
achievable within the range of the treatment system identified in
the FFS and ROD, the limit will be waived pursuant to Section
121(d)(4) for this interim measure under CERCLA.
For Alternative 3, Federal and State requirements pertaining to
reinjection to groundwater will have to be met. To implement
Alternative 4, the treated discharge will need to comply with
Federal, State and Local pretreatment requirements.
Lonq-Term Effectiveness; This criterion refers to the magnitude
of residual risk and the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable
protection of human health and the environment over time, once
cleanup goals have been met. Given that this is an interim
action, effectiveness need only be maintained for the duration of
the interim action, which is expected to be no more than five
years. Therefore, this criterion will evaluate long-term
effectiveness over a five year period.
Alternative l is hot effective in the long term, since it allows
contaminants to continue to migrate from the site. Alternatives
2 and 4 will be effective in reducing the migration of
contaminated groundwater from the site, once implemented, and
should maintain their effectiveness for the expected duration of
the interim remedial action.
As indicated previously, additional information is needed to
determine if Alternate 3 will be effective in reducing the
migration of contaminated groundwater from the site.
Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility or Volume Through Treatment; This
criterion addresses the degree to which a remedy utilizes
treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of
contaminants at the site.
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 involve the treatment of contaminated
groundwater, and should reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume
of contaminants in the shallow groundwater.
Short-Term Effectiveness; This criterion refers to the time in
which the remedy achieves protection, as well as the remedy's
potential to create adverse impacts on human health and the
environment that may result during the construction and
implementation period.
13
-------
Alternative 1 presents the least short-term risks to on-site
workers since no construction activities are involved in
implementing the No Action alternative. However, it will not
reduce any of the existing risks at the site. Alternatives 2, 3
and 4 will require the execution of health and safety protection
measures during the remedial construction to adequately protect
workers. These measures may include requirements for protective
clothing and respiratory protection.
Health and safety measures to protect the community, such as dust
or vapor suppression during excavation, may also be required.
However, Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 do not present health and safety
problems which cannot be successfully addressed by available
construction methods. Additionally, the treatment systems
proposed for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 will be comprised of
processes that are well established and readily available.
As indicated previously, additional information is needed to
determine if Alternative 3 will be effective in reducing the
migration of contaminated groundwater from the site.
With regard to time periods in which the alternatives achieve
protection, Alternative l will not achieve protection, since
contaminants will continue to migrate from the site. The
estimated time periods for design of the other alternatives, and
periods for construction and testing are estimated as follows:
Alternative 2-18 months for design, 6 months for construction
and 4 months for testing; Alternative 3-22 months for design, 6
months for construction and 4 months for testing; Alternative 4 -
10 months for design, 6 months for construction and 4 months for
testing.
Iroplementability; Implementability is the technical and
administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the
availability of materials and services needed to implement the
selected alternative.
Alternative 1 is the simplest alternative to implement from a
technical standpoint since it only involves actions to
periodically inspect and sample the site, and continue to provide
information about the site to the surrounding community.
The operations associated with Alternative 2 (construction of a
groundwater extraction, treatment and surface water discharge
system) employ well established, readily available treatment
processes and construction methods.
14
-------
The operations associated with Alternative 3 would require the
implementation of pilot studies to determine the effectiveness of
groundwater reinjection. Due to the complex hydrogeology at the
site, further information is needed to evaluate the technical
feasibility of reinjection, and to determine the effect
reinjection would have on contaminant migration in the
groundwater (i.e., whether reinjection would assist or restrict
off-site migration of contaminated groundwater).
The information required to adequately assess the feasibility of
groundwater reinjection will be obtained as part of the site-wide
RI/FS, at which time the discharge to groundwater alternative
will again be reviewed.
The operations associated with Alternative 4 (construction of a
groundwater extraction, treatment and sanitary sewer discharge
system) employ well established, readily available treatment
processes and construction methods.
Administrative requirements associated with Alternative 2 include
compliance with substantive National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System and New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System requirements for discharge of treated groundwater to a
tributary of the Bound Brook. For Alternative 3, reinjection
will require compliance with NJDEP reinjection limitations
established for the receiving groundwater.
Alternative 4 will necessitate compliance with Federal, State and
Local pretreatment requirements. However, based upon information
provided by MCUA, discharge of treated groundwater to the
sanitary sewer is not practicable from an administrative
perspective. During discussions with EPA, MCUA has indicated
that it would only be willing to accept the discharge from this
site on an emergency basis, if no other alternatives were
available, and even then, only on a limited, temporary basis.
Consequently, Alternative 4 is not administratively
implementable, since MCUA is not likely to accept the discharge.
In summary, Alternative 2 is implementable from both an
administrative and technical perspective. Alternative 3 is
implementable from an administrative perspective only, while
Alternative 4 is only implementable from a technical perspective.
Cost; Cost includes capital and operation and maintenance costs.
Alternative 1, No Action, has an estimated present worth of
$1,153,000. The primary constituents of this cost are
monitoring. The present worth cost estimates of Alternatives 2,
3 and 4 are $7,700,000, $9,891,000 and $5,744,000, respectively.
15
-------
The cost estimates *re based on the assumption that approximately
72,000 gallons of groundvater per day will be treated.
/
State Acceptancet This criterion indicates whether, based on its
review of the FFS and Proposed Plan, the State concurs with,
opposes, or has no comment on the preferred alternative. Based
on the comments received on the Proposed Plan, the State accepts
Alternative 2.
Community Acceptance; Based on the comments received on the
Proposed Plan, the community is concerned about the downstream
effects that the treated groundwater discharge would have on the
on-site stream. Consequently,-the community prefers Alternative
4. However, the community has expressed acceptance of
Alternative 2.
SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedy is Alternative 2: groundwater extraction,
treatment and disposal through discharge of the treated
groundwater to an on-site surface water body. This interim
remedy contains the following components:
o Installation of a groundwater collection trench along
the northeast portion of Lot 1-B, which will extend
from the surface of the site down to approximately 10
to 15 feet below the surface;
o Installation of groundwater extraction wells to a depth
of approximately 130 feet. For design purposes, three
extraction wells are proposed;
o Treatment of the contaminated groundwater by processes
including air stripping, biological treatment and
activated carbon adsorption;
o Treatment and off-site disposal of sludge generated by
the treatment processes;
o Conveyance of the treated groundwater via an above-
ground freeze-protected pipe to the surface water body
(stream) flowing along the eastern property boundary of
the site; and
o Implementation of a program for on-site and off-site
groundwater and on-site surface water monitoring to
measure the presence within and the potential migration
of hazardous substances from the site, until such time
that the final remedy is in place.
16
-------
The goal of this interim remedy is to reduce the migration of
contaminated groundwater off site until a permanent remedy is
implemented. The cost estimates for Alternative 2 are as
follows:
Capital Cost: $ 3,833,000
Annual O & M Cost: $ 915,000
Present Worth: $ 7,700,000
Table 10 provides further detail regarding the components of this
alternative and the cost estimate. It should be noted that the
interim remedy presented in this ROD is based on a conceptual
design and cost estimate, and that some changes may be made to
the remedy as a result of the remedial design and construction
process.
Alternative 2 best satisfies EPA's evaluation criteria for this
interim remedy. While none of the interim remedial alternatives
evaluated are fully protective of public health and the
environment in and of themselves, Alternative 2 is more
protective than Alternative 1, and is expected to be as
protective as Alternative 4. As stated previously, additional
information is required to evaluate the protectiveness of
Alternative 3.
With respect to compliance with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements, reduction in toxicity, mobility or
volume through treatment and long-term effectiveness, Alternative
2 ranks equal to or higher than the other alternatives. While
Alternative 4 would be more effective in the short term than
Alternative 2 (since Alternative 4 would require less time to
implement), Alternative 2 is more easily implementable than
Alternative 4 (since MCUA has indicated that the Authority may
not be willing to accept the discharge from this site).
Alternative 2 is more costly than Alternatives 1 and 4; however,
it is less costly than Alternative 3. Although some members of
the community have expressed a preference for Alternative 4, the.
public is generally supportive of Alternative 2. Therefore,
based upon the above considerations, EPA has selected Alternative
2 as the interim remedy for the site.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
This interim remedy (Alternative 2) is part of an overall remedy
for the site which will ultimately protect human health and the
environment.
17
-------
This interim remedy will restrict the migration of contaminated
groundwater off the site until a permanent.remedy is in place.
This remedy is interim in nature and, as such, will not be
protective in the long term. Although this interim remedy is not
protective in and of itself, it will be consistent with an
overall remedy which will attain the statutory requirement for
protectiveness.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
Section 121 of CERCLA provides that interim measures which are
part of a total remedial action do not have to meet ARARs, as
long as these requirements will be achieved upon completion of
the total remedy. Accordingly, this interim action does not have
to achieve the cleanup goals for specific chemicals in the
groundwater at the site which are set forth in those ARARs.
Those requirements which are applicable or relevant and
appropriate to the interim remedy's implementation are provided
in Table 11. During implementation of this interim remedy,
compliance with the requirements listed in Table 11 will be
achieved to the maximum extent practicable. Since this is an
interim measure requiring expeditious implementation, any ARAR
which cannot be achieved by the interim remedy may be waived and
will be attained upon completion of the final remedy. As
previously discussed, should any State-developed effluent
limitation for discharge to the on-site stream not be technically
achievable within the range of the treatment system identified in
the FFS and ROD, the limit will be waived pursuant to Section
121(d)(4) of CERCLA.
Except as described above, this interim remedy is expected to
comply with all Federal, State and Local requirements which are
relevant and appropriate to its implementation.
Cost Effectiveness
Alternative 2 is cost effective. It is more cost effective than
Alternative 3 in reducing risks to human health and the
environment in the short term by restricting the migration of
contaminated groundwater off the site.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment for
resource recovery) Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
Alternative 2 does not represent a permanent solution with
respect to the principal threats posed by the site.
18
-------
However, the selected interim remedy represents the best balance
of tradeoffs anong the alternatives evaluated with respect to the
evaluation criteria, given the limited scope of the action.
The statutory preference for the use of permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies will be addressed at the time
of selection of a permanent remedy for the site.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
Alternative 2 utilizes treatment as a principal element, in that
treatment is accomplished by extracting contaminated groundvater
and treating and disposing of it on site. Given the interim
nature of this action, Alternative 2 utilizes treatment as a
principal element to the maximum extent practicable. This
interim action constitutes a measure to restrict migration of
contaminated groundwater from the site and does not constitute
the final remedy for the site.
The statutory preference for treatment as a principal element
will be fully addressed in the decision document (s) for the final
remedy for the site.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There have been no significant changes in the selected interim
remedy from the preferred interim remedy described in the
Proposed Plan.
19
-------
CHEMSOL SITE LOCATION
E: USOS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP. PLAMFIELD, NEW JERSEY. ItSI.
1000 0 1000 20.00
SCALE IN FEET
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
CHEMSOL INCORPORATED (TAMO REALTY) STTf
PISCATAWAY TOWNSHIP, M»Ol£SEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
SITE LOCATION MAP
•Aicom
-------
FIGURE - 2
PLEAS \NT VIE< i DRIVE
LOT 1A
EXPLANATION
CONCRETE PAD
1— FENCE
— SITE BOUNDARY
PORT BEADING RAILROAD
1 1
,J£J »M 0 30«
'*' SCALE IN FEET
CHEMSOL. INC.
^ISCATAWAY TOWNSHIP, NEW
smi PLAN
II — * • '
II
J
it MAP SOURCE: HLA GROUNDWATER CHARACTERIZATION
,1 REPORT (TANG REALTY) SEPT. 1*90
II
JERSEY
MM.com r«Mi. we
.
-------
FIGURE - 3
SOUTH
SCHEMATIC GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
CHEMSOL, INC.
-------
PLEASANT VMEir DRIVE
EXPLANATION
(TW-fS
3M- TO THE SOUTH
-------
FIGURE - 5
0 }•
OW-10 OW-J-,
(•7.MO) (MS)/ I
OW>0 © / I
1373) OW 4;
EXPLANATION
@ EXISTING PCNCHEO WATEM («- IS ) MOMTORMO WELL
(741) CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANICS IN iifl/L
MAP SOURCE: HLA CROUNOWATER CHARACTERIZATION
REPORT IIANQ REALTY) SEPT 1MB
I)
I
MM
0011
rnUOT »MMTLKa IMKtPf M AfHIl. l»«l BT MALUtILM flHWIt. WU. 1. ' •
(MS) NOT SAMPLED '' *' 'M '
CIKMSOl.INC
PISCATAWAV. NEW JERSEY
CONCENTRATIONS OF VOLATILE ORGANICS IN
PERCHED WATER TABLE
-------
FIGURE - 6
FLEMTRg
EXPLANATION
4" EXISTING WATER TABLE MOMTORMQ WELL.
(f) CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL VOLATILE ORQANICS IN ug/L
FROM SAMPLES TAKEN M APRIL IM1 BY MALCOLM PIRME. MC.
C-1» WELL IS SCREENED FROM SO'-nr
(NO) NO CONTAMINANTS DETECTED
I)
i --
UKi nun
i _.. . — i
MAP SOURCE: HLAQASSOCIATESpeROIINOWATER CHARACTERIZATION REPORT
'.CAM IN III
CHIMSOL. INC.
PISCATAWAV TOWNSHIP. HCW JERSEY
CONCENTRATIONS OF VOLATILE ORGANICS
|^ UPPER BEDROCK AQUIFER '
-------
FIGURE - 7
. . .
(NS)1/
© »•
OW tO OW-3.
(11.394)
\
n)
EXPLANATION
MAP SOURCE: HLA GROUNOWATER CHARACTERIZATION
REPORT (TANG REALTY) SEPT 1990
0 EXISTMO PERCHED WATER (« 15) MOMTORMG WELL
|44) CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS IN uo/L
FROM SAMPLES TAKEN IN APRIL 19»l BY MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC.
-------
FIGURE - 8
PORT HEADING AAlCHOAb
EXPLANATION
EXISTING WATER TABLE MOMTORMO WELL
(90) CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS IN ug/L
FROM SAMPLES TAKEN IN APRIL 1»91 BY MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC.
MAP SOURCE: HLA ASSOCIATES GROUNDWATER CHARACTERIZATION REPORT
TANG REALTY. SEP.H90
(NO) NO CONTAMINANTS DETECTED
(ID) INCOMPLETE DATA
I)'
r.uo
S<:AI i IN n 11
CHEMSOL. INC.
PISCATAWAV TOWNSHIP. NEW JERSEY
CONCENTRATIONS OF SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS IN UPPER BEDROCK AQUIFER
-------
TABLE 1 - TARGET COMPOUND LIST (TCL)
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND
RESULTS
; I 1.LLi 1W-06
••;•:• •••::•.• .-.- ItAMPugjr £&B
COMPOUND , Jjj
Chloromethane
Bromomeihan*
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroathane
Melhylene Chloride
Acetone -.-.
Carbon DteuMkto__ __ ^
I.l-Olchloroelhen* ^
1.1-Otehloroethane - =
1.2-DichloroetherM <
Chloroform :
1,2-Dtchlororthane v
2-Butanone
1.l.1-Trichloro«hane _ ..s
Carbon TetracMorlde _. _•;
Bromodlchloromethant ^
1 .2-Dtehtoropropane ^ >
ds-1.3-tMchioropropene ,j
Tffchloroethene < j
Ofloromochloromelrian* , _ , 5
1.1.2-Trlchloroethane
Benzene .-..• . .. :i
trans- 1 ,3-Dtchloropropene j
Bromofonn .; J
4-Methyt-2-PentMtoM , < $
2-Hexanone
Telracrtloroethene
1.1.2.2-Tetracliloroelhene ..
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Xylene
HD2K
•iortj.. _:.
17 U
17 U
31 J
17 U
17 U
17 U
17 U
17 U
18
120
18
94
17 U
17 U
290 J
17 U
4 J
17 U
35
17 U
17 U
42
17 U
17 U
17 U
17 U
3 J
17 U
17 U
14 J
17 U
17 U
17 U
TW-07
BH027
2900
2900
2900
2900
2900
3600
2900
2900
2900
2900
860
2900
2900
2900
33000
2900
2900
2900
1200
2900
2900
420
2900
2900
2900
2900
2900
2900
2900
2900
2900
2900
2900
-
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
J
u
u
u
J
u
u
u
J
u
u
J
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
"1W-08
BHD28
(up/I)
670
670
670
670
1500
1300
670
200
670
160
13000
300
670
250
850
670
670
670
9500
670
670
1400
670
670
670
670
120
670
1000
670
670
670
140
TW-..J TW-10 TW-11 TW-M TW-12 1
6HD?J BH030 :BHD31 BHDJ1 VIS ,V BHDtt t
(not) (uu/L) J (uo/L) -• ':••• (UO/L) - : ,. (uo/i)
-------
TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)
COMPOUND
WELL* TW-01 . TW-02
SAMPLE* f?j:vBHD20 'V BHDZ1
\ y
Chloromethane
Bromomolhane
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroelhane
^
MethyleneChlorMe _.j
Acetone
.t ^i4s
Carbon Dlsulflde
1,1-Otohloroelhene : -- <:
l.l-Dtehtoroethane ...•>.. s.
1.2-Dichloroethene ^ . ^
Chloroform
.
1.2-Dfchloroethane :
2-Butanone
-. - »:
1,1,1-Trfchtoroelhane . , j
Carbon Telrachloride
Bromodlchloromelhane •
1,2-DJchloropropane ..
cls-1 .3-Dtehloropropene •> :
TnCnlorOQinativ v ,
1,1.2-Trichloi
Benzene V:
96thdfl6 •• ;i
, s
lrans-1.3-Dlchloropropene
Bromoforrn
^
4~Methyl-2-PenUmone I
2-Hexanone
Tetrachkxoethene
1 .1 ,2.2-TeJrachloroeihene
Toluene .:;
Chloroberaene
Ethylbenzene
Slyrene
Xylene
*** * :ii
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
5 J
2 J
10 U
10 U.
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
7 J
10 U
10 U
8 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
1 J
10 U
10 U
4 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
£?-
10
10
10
10
10
10
. 10
2
2
4
9
2
10
10
4
10
10
10
15
10
10
1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
10
10
10
TW-03
BHD22
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
J
J
J
J
U
U
J
U
U
U
B
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
1 J
2 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
3 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
TW-04
TW-05
BHD2J BHD24RE
(u0fl) (ug/l)
1000 U
1000 U
1000 U
1000 U
3200 BJ
15000
1000 U
440 J
140 J
960 J
5300
760 J
3600
190 J
7400
1000 U
1000 U
1000 U
5800
1000 U
1000 U
1200
1000 U
1000 U
630 J
1000 U
300 J
1000 U
11000
1000 U
230 J
1000 U
1300
1700
1700
1700
1700
5500
9800
1700
430
260
20000
13000
5200
3600
530
1700
1700
1700
1700
23000
1700
1700
7300
1700
1700
3900
1700
500
470
8500
1100
510
1700
2500
U
U
U
U
U
BD
U
DJ
DJ
D
D
D
D
DJ
D
U
U
U
BD
U
U
D
U
U
D
U
DJ
DJ
D
DJ
DJ
U
D
TW-05
TW-05
BHD24 BHD24
REMS REMSO
(ug/l) ,4, (ug/l)
1700 U
1700 U
570 DJ
1700 U
5600 BD
8600 D
1700 U
7600 D
220 DJ
1700 U
13000 D
5100 D
3200 D
590 DJ
2400 D
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
36000 DE
1700 U
1700 U
17000 D
1700 U
1700 U
3500 D
1700 U
510 DJ
450 DJ
18000 D
7800 D
550 DJ
1700 U
2700 D
1700 U
1700 U
550 DJ
1700 U
5500 BD
9800 D
1700 U
7800 D
290 DJ
1700 U
13000 D
5000 D
3400 D
620 DJ
2500 D
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
37000 DE
1700 U
1700 U
17000 D
1700 U
1700 U
3700 D
1700 U
570 DJ
460 DJ
18000 D
8000 D
580 DJ
1700 U
2800 D
TW-5A
BHD25 ; *,
(ug/l) *
1000 U
1000 U
390 J
1000 U
3100 U
1000 U
1000 U
360 J
180 J
18000
6900
2900
3400 U
310 J
600 J
1000 U
1000 U
1000 U
8500
1000 U
1000 U
4800
1000 U
1000 U
2500
1000 U
280 J
180 J
4900
620 J
260 J
1000 U
1300
-------
TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)
1/VELL* fW-14 TW-15
•; :V I SAMPLE |Q<3I
COMPOUND " , |Jt
Chloromethane .
Bromornelhane
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane /
Methylene Chloride _j
Acetone , <
Carbon DisullWe j >
l.t'Dlchloroethene
1.1-Dtehloroethaw _ ..>
1.2-Dichloroethene
Chloroform
i.2-0lchioroethane \
2-Butanone
1.1.1-Trichlofoetharte ..,<
Carbon Tetrachlorldo ,-_:.,
BromodteMoromethana
1.2-Dfchloropropane
cls-1,3-DichloropropeiMl i
Trlchloroelhene . j
CNbromochkxomethane
1.1.2-Trichtoroelharw . ....
Benzene
trans-1.3-Dtehlofopropen«
Bromolorm
4-Methyl-2-Penfanofw
2-Hexanone *
Tetrachloroethene
1.1.2.2-Tetrachloroethene .-
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Elhyttranzene
Styrene
Xytene
HD34 ; >;BHD35
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 'U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
R
10 U
10 U
10 U
10
1 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
9 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
41
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
OW-01 OW )2
BHD36 BHDJ7
A (ugA) (uflO.) .
420 U
420 U
420 U
420 U
3000
4400 U
46 J
900
630
2500
25000 D
6000
980
3900
270 J
420 U
420 U
420 U .
34000 D
420 U
68 J
3400
. 420 U
420 U
680
420 U
88 J
81 J
5000
46 J
81 J
420 U
410 J
42 U
42 U
45
42 U
42 U
60 U
42 U
42 U
12 J
700
5 J
42 U
42 U
42 U
42 U
42 U
42 U
42 U
56
42 U
42 U
190
42 U
42 U
42 U
42 U
42 U
42 U
39 J
9 J
97
42 U
220
OW-04 OW-10 OW-11
BH038 BH039 BHD4S
(ug/L) (uo/L) (Ufl/L)
too u
100 U
66 J
100 U
100 U
220 U
100 U
26 J
370
3400 D
500
46 J
370
43 J
3 J
100 U
100 U
100 U
1600 U
100 U
25 J
340
100 U
100 U
220
12 J
180
42 J .
5100 IXJ
450
1100
100 U
4700 D
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
1 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
4. J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
3 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
1 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
2 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
C-1
BHO46*
(ug/L)
670 U
670 U
450 J
670 U
33000 OU
81000 D
310 J
2300 J
680
12000
55000 0
21000 0
20000 D
8600 OJ
25000 O
670 U
300 J
670 U
220000 O
670 U
150 J
17000 D
670 U
670 U
10000
190 J
1300
1400
26000 O
5500
1600
670 U
6600
FD-01
BH040
1700 UJ
1700 UJ
520 J
1700 UJ
12000 BJ
8100 BJ
1700 UJ
760 J
300 J
21000 J
14000 J
5900 J
3100 J
830 J
3200 J
1700 UJ
1700 UJ
1700 UJ
27000 B
1700 UJ
1700 UJ
8700 J
1700 UJ
1700 UJ
3600 J
1700 UJ
750 J
480 J
10000 J
1200 J
630 J
1700 UJ
2900 J
-------
TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)
. •::.; I'-VEIJL* t-'D-OI FD-02 TB-01 TB-l-2 TB-03 TB-04 TB-<5
[SAMPil^l ^8HD40HB BHO47 BH001 BHD02 ""' BHD03 ' BH004 BHDOS ""'" "
COMPOUND IgcMOrt.) , \(ilOrU S.t (U«fO
1.1-Wchtoroethane
1,2-Dfchloroetnertt
Chloroform - ;
1.2-Otchloroethane ,
2-Bulanone
1.1.1-Trichloroethane ••-,
Carbon Tetrachtortde
Bromodlchtoromethane
1.2-Dtehloropropane
cls-1.3-Dichtoraproper* ..,,
TrlcMoroetnene J
1.1.2-TrichloroMnane
Benzene
lrans-1.3-Dfchtoropropene .;:
Bromoform . 5
4-Methyl-2-Pent«none ;
2-Hexanone
Tetrachloroethene
1 .1 ,2.2-Tetf acMoroethene
Toluene
Chtorobentene
Ethylbenzene *
Styrene .
Xylene
1700 U
1700 U
280 DJ
1700 U
5300 BD
6000 D
1700 U
370 DJ
200 DJ
16000 D
11000 D
4500 D
3200 D
520 DJ
1900 D
1700 U
1700 U
1700 U
23000 D
1700 U
1700 U
8000 D
1700 U
1700 U
3300 D
1700 U
380 DJ
380 DJ
8600 D
950 DJ
440 DJ
1700 U
2200 D
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
R
24
10 U
10 U
2 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
3 BJ
9 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
3 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
3 J
10 U
10 U
4 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
7 BJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
7 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
2 BJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U .
10 U
8 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
12 BJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U .
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
3 BJ
R
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
FB-01
"BHD10
8300 U
8300 U
8300 U
8300 U
130000 B
8300 U
8300 U
8300 U
8300 U
8300 U
8300 U
8300 U
8300 U
8300 U
8300 U
8300 U
8300 U
8300 U
1000 BJ
8300 U
8300 U
8300 U
8300 U
8300 U
8300 U
8300 U
8300 U
8300 U
8300 U
8300 U
8300 U
8300 U
8300 U
-------
TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)
KEY TO QUALIFIERS
U * *"' COMPOUND WAS NOT DETECTED; NUMBER SHOWN IS
THE OUANTITATION LIMIT OF THE ANALYSIS
THIS QUANTTTATION LIMIT IS ADJUSTED FOR DILUTION.
J ESTIMATED VALUE
E COMPOUND EXCEEDED THE CALIBRATION LIMIT OF
THE DETECTOR
D SAMPLE WAS ANALYZED USING A SECONDARY DILUTION FACTOR
B CONTAMINANT WAS ALSO DETECTED IN BLANK; POSSIBLE
BLANK CONTAMINATION
N PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF A COMPOUND
R DATA REJECTED BY VALIDATORS
KEY TO SAMPLE ID NUMBERS
~<®m.?? "yjv»"»' v-r*
''d&MU :'*i'- 'Jf&*t
TB TRIP BLANK
FB FIELD BLANK
FD FIELD DUPLICATE
REMS REANALYZED WITH MATRIX SPIKE
REMSO DUPLICATE OF MATRIX SPIKE SAMPLE
-------
TABLE - 2
NON-TARGET COMPOUND LIST (TCL)
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS RESULTS
Groundwater, April 1991
Cbemsol, Inc., Piscataway. New Jersey
WELLf
mrnmtmmam
TW-01*
TW-02*
TW-03
TW-04
TW-05*
TW-5A
TW-06*
TW-07
TW-08
TW-09
TW-10
TW-11
TW-12
TW-13
TW-14
TW-15
ow-oi
OW-02*
OW-04*
OW-10 •
OW-11 •
C-l
FD-01*
FD-02
TB-05
FB-01*
SAMPLE f
6142B-02-20
6142B-02-21
6142B-02-22
6142B-02-23
6142B-02-24
6142B-02-25
6142B-02-26
6142B-02-27
6142B-02-28
6142B-02-29
6142B-02-30
6142B-02-31
6142B-02-32
6142B-02-33
6142B-02-34
6142B-02-35
6142B-02-36
6142B-02-37
6142B-02-38
61426-02-39
6142B-02-4S
6142B-02-46
6142B-02-40
6142B-02-47
6142B-02-OS
61426-02-10
Acrolein Acrylonitrile
(ng/L) (og/L)
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 U
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ.
10 UJ
10 U
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 U
100 UJ
10 UJ
10 I
10 UJ
10 U
1000 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 U
-. -';• • R
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 U
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 -u
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 U
100 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 U
1000 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 U
R
U - Undetected
-------
TABLE - 3
TARGET COMPOUND LIST (TCL) SEMI-VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
COMPOUND
Phenol
WELL* TW-01 TV/-02 TW-03 TW-04 TW-05 TW-5A
SAMPt^i ? BHD20: BHD21 BHD22 BHO23 BHD24 BHD25
J : ., 1 .._* .1 ; : (ugfl.) (ug/L)
bis(2-ChioroothyOEIlMr
2-chtofOphwiol ... "", ,,
1.3-DtehlofObenzw* - £
1,4-DtchkxobenzMM • -
1,2-DfchlorobenzftM \
2-Mathylphanol
2.2*-Oxyt>ls(1 -Chkmpropaltt
4-Methytphenol ,. .< _
N-NHroso-CM-n-Propylimlo«
Hexachloroetham «/ •• L_
Isophorone
2-Nltrophenol ;
2.4-Dlmethy1|
^4^. •-» ., "•
IfMnOI
bta(2-ChlOfoelhoxy)M«th«** j_
2,4-tNchlorod
thenol - ••;
1,2,4-Trlchlo«>t>«M«n« '
Naphthalene
% f
4.ChtoroanMn« , " t -
Mexachlorobutadlene
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
2-Methylnapnthalene
HmachlorocycfopflnatdtoM
2,4,6-Trlchloropnenol
2,4,5-Trfchlorophanof '
2-Chloconaphlhatone ,
2-NHroanlllna
Dimethyl PhthalaM
Acenaphthyten*
2.6-Dlnllrololuen*
3-Nnroanlllna
Acenaphthene
10 U
10 U
10 U
13
96
1400 D
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
61
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
8 J
11 J
160
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
75 U
30 U
75 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
75 U
30 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
(ug/L) (UQ/L)
42
4 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
70
10 U
31
10 U
10
10 U
11
10 U .
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
100 D
10 U
10 U
10 U
9 J
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
160 D
35
3 J
5 J
30
320 D
540 D
10 U
28
10 U
10 U
10 U
18
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
50
34
10 U
10 U
10 U
3 J
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
25 U
4 J
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
(ug/L)
58
13 J
30 U
30 U
7 J
100
230
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
5 J
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
11 J
7 J
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
75 U
30 U •
75 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
75 U
30 U
TW-06
BH026
(ug/L)
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
TW-07
BHD27
3
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
79
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
25
10
25
10
10
10
25
10
1W-08
BHD28
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
1 J
2 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
4 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 J
13
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
-------
TABLE 3 (CONTINUED)
WELLf TW-09 TW-11 TW-11 TW-11 TW-12 TW-13
: vf^vV'- . . SAMPL6 iW^02»W IBM031^*BM031M$ BHD31MSD BHD32 " ' BHO33 ' "'*
COMPOUND; ...^ | (upA) T :iS
2-M«hylphMMl
2.2>-Oxyt>ls(1-Chloropre|WfMi
4**Motny1ph6nol •;, •• •>**
N-NKroso-OI-n-Propyfcmlne
Nitrobenzene , -\ "•.<•>-
isophorone - •• ,. ':• -:-
2-NHrophenol -, , " ,
2.4-Dlrnetnylphenot ; ?;*•<
bta(2-ChloroethoKy)Methan* <
2.4-Wchlorophenol ,-frf^_
1 A4«TrichtorobenMiM '*±f\
ft! «U|B»|M»A • *"" V
4-ChtoroanlHne ; v'Ev<
HexacfUorobutadlene V it.
4-Chtoro-3-Melhylphenol ;; ._
2-Methylnaphthatene ! >
HexacniorocydopenaiOMn* .
2.4,6-Trlchlorophenol .... *?\-
2,4£*Trfchlorophefwl '..
2-Criloronaphthalene *"
2-Nltroanlllne , ,
Dimethyl Phthalate
Acenaphihylene
2.6-DinHrotoluene
3-Nltroanlllne
Acenaphthene
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 U .
10 U
10 U
f n II
1U U
10 U
25 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
in III
1U UJ
10 UJ
25 UJ
10 UJ
25 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
25 UJ
10 UJ
TW-14 TW-15
WOt) (u*U (ug
-------
TABLE 3 (CONTINUED)
COMPOUND
Phenol
bls<2-Chloro«
2-chlorophen
1.3-Dtehlorot
1.4-Dtehlorot
1.2-Otehkxot
2-Methylphef
2.?-Oxybls(1
4-Methylpher
N-Nllroso-DI
Hexachloroet
Nitrobenzene
Isophorone
2-NMropheno
2.4-Dhnethyh
bls(2-Chloro«
2.4-Dfchlorofi
1,2.4-Trlchla
Naphthalene
4-Chforoanllti
Hexachtorobt
4-Chtoro-3-l
2-Methylnapl
Hexachtorocy
2.4.6-Trlchloi
2.4.5-Trlchla
2-Chloronapr
2-Nllroanlllrw
Dlmelhyl Phlr
2.6-DlnHrotol
3-Nltroarrillrw
Acenaphthen
WELL f OW-10
SAMPLE y^TBHliSi ||
' . tiJ/l
_,
tttriahw V,
ol
lenzene - ... '•:
tenzene . '
teruene - ,/-•*
Ml -- -V--';
-Chkxoproparw
*
-n-Propyt§frnft4
hane- . : ; ^
'•*' i>v
* *
Bhenot - ,*' ; ^
ithoxylMethafM ^_
•henol ; ^ ^_
otMniMM ",<
:-%\
i* /-
itadlene ' ,«•";;
inlfrit Jnti »**4 * '
leinyipnenoi
rthalene - ;...: *
ctopenaMlene
ophenol
ophertrjl •.
ithalene ,
talalfl •
1MM
I
'ijfiH \ ' ^yZ-,
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
OW-11
?BHD4S
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
25
10
25
10
10
10
25
10
C-1 FD-02 FB-01 FB-01 FB-Ct FD-Ot
^BHD4«T"'y BHD47 BHblO BHD10MB BHD10M90' BHD40 ' "; ;' .'
.-jWfo (ufl'L) (urjrt.) , (ug/L) (ugAJ (ug/L)
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
1500
3100 D
200 U
200 U
44 J
660
580
200 U
450
200 U
64 J
580
230
220
38 J
200 U
960
120 J
110 J
200 U
200 U
200 U
200 U
200 U
200. U
500 U
200 U
500 U
63 J
200 U
200 U
500 U
200 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U .
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
57
10
57
10
39
10
10
10
10
10
39
10
10
10
10
10
10
41
10
10
10
64
10
10
10
25
10
25
10
10
10
25
38
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
56 .
10 U
59
10 U
39
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
40
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
40
10 U
10 U
10 U
62
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
25 il
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
37
160 D
32
10 U
5 J
30
360 D
570 D
10 U
28
10 U
10 U
10 U
18
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
50
33
10 UJ
10 U
10 U
3 J
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
25 U
4 J
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
-------
TABLE 3 (CONTINUED)
COMPOUND
WEUf TW-01 "NY-02 TW-03 TW-04 TW-05 TW-5A
-Aii.i
2.4-DinHrophanol t__
4*-NHfoph6rtc
DMjwuofuran
2.4-fMnRrololi
•> ,
urn*
DteltiylpMhalBMi i: :.
4-CWoropher
FtuorwM
4-NKroanHli*
4.6-Oln»fo-2
N-NltrosodlpI
4-BromophW
ty(~pMnyt6thar t_
•Meihytphanol ^__
wnylamlM ;: i:
iy1-phanyMlMr <
HeKKhlorobwtten* > -.> 1
PontacMoroprwnol ;; *
PhOfWflthrerx
Anthracnw
CartMzoto <
Fluorafflhw*
', x &-
v * 1 X. »
\, > \J> rt¥ ^
Uttort * -4. $< ^u__
^* •>*!*%(
* vV^
Bttylbwnyiphlhaltte 4V^_
S.y-OteMocu
Mrotloirm MT;-=
B«ttO(a)ArthnK«M *' *;; ^_
ChiysMW ;:
-
bls(2-Elhyth«vO PMhaltl* ,
IttflidtA '' :'
BMtto(b)FMioranth«Mi \ <
Bwuo(k)nuor*nthane - |
Bwizo(a)Pyrana - " '••-
lndeno(l.2,9-
«d)Pynm*
Dtoenz(a.h)Anthrac«M
Bwuo(g,h.l)P«yta(M . *
upft.)^^
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
34
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
IMO/U ...,\J
75 U
75 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
75 U
75 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
75 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
30 U
tig/L) .;.
25 U
25 U
10 U.
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
3 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
(U0AJ ..
25 U
R
10 U
10 U
110 D
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
4 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
. 10 U
10 U
10 U
(U9/L)
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
18 B
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
. 10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
(ugfl)
75
75
30
30
6
30
30
75
75
30
30
30
75
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
1W-06 TW-07 TW-08
; fug
-------
TABLE 3 (CONTINUED)
WELL* TW-09 TW-11 TW-11 TW-11 TW-12 TW-13 TW-14 TW-15 OW-01 OW-02 OW-04
SAMPL§1HPlBW29"^BHD31 ^BHD3tMS BHD31M!to BHD32 ' BHD33 \ BHO34^ " BHD35 "*"* BHD36 T^BHDSt"**^ BH038~
COMPOUND , ^JillLMO^) <(ug/L) (ogAj , (ug/L) (ug/L)
2.4-Dinl|rophenol
4-Nltrophenol , '
Mwnzofuran ' >
2.4-DNtrolohMnft ;
DMhylphthalatft
4-CMoropheny(-ptMtnyt0(n«r ,_
Fhiorane «
4-NllroanHliw
4,6-DlriHr6-2-MelMpft«tof '
N-Nilrosodlphenylamin* - <
4-Bromophenyl-phenytolnar
• • *-• l.fr. ' MkMA
Pentachlorophenol ,:•;:' ....
Phenanthr** -*>*, *
Cartoazoto *•*' ,VV< ;vKJ*
DI-n-ButytpMhaial« "H^'4.
ftudranlhan* x ' :&*£.k ?
Pyr«n» " < | ^* ;-'L
ButyfcwizylpMlMiat* !<,;|.
3.3*-DteMorob«uldln»
B«uo(*)Afllhfec*w -?. £
Chrysene = ",_
bte(2-Elhymmyl> PMhatafc .. . .
W-n-OclytPWhalate , ,, .... ,
Beruo (b) Fluorarthan* " ,>
Benzo (k) FluoranthwM ,- , :
Bwuo(a)Pyrene ; , f
Indeno (1 ,2,3-cd) Pyrww
Ottwnz(a.h)Anlhracen«
-------
TABLE 3 (CONTINUED)
COMPOUND
WELL* OW-10 OW-11
. - /;. VlS&s&h
2.4-DlnHrophenol , ,;_
4-NRfo0h6noi: ' ' - < •• yj
MMNUofuran
,• -•> ,
2.4-DlnarolahMn* , " >>*,
DtelhytpMhal
Fluorwte '•
4.6-Dlnltro*2
Iw llHVUQWJifH
MMjfefjilMM^ij
ncacnionxN
PwiiacMoropI
PtMMiantltfMM
Cartttzola
wn*0tityw
Pn«n.,f
ButyltMfuyfpf
M« v ;\; 'u
>yt-ph ' ^3
inanw • :. «, ^ v|
s s ,-, 5 -» >s;\^
HIUulv • f v1 %!. ,^y|
3.3'-Dtchlorob«wzldlt* ff JT
Ben20(a)AnihracoM ^1-T
CtuySGf
bb(2~Elhyttw
-* . 5
"'!
xyf) PMhalat* • ;?
D)-n-Oct»«Phth«lat« .. .. |.|_
BMUo(b)fluorantiNm« > "?
Banzo(k)FHraranlhMM '" ;--s
8anzo(a)Pyrerw . - , ;
Indeno (1.2,3-
•cd)Pyra(W s /;
DftMnz(a.h)Anthrac«tt ^_
Benn) (g.h.l) Peryfertai
^lO^Li^'^^i
R
R
R
R
R'
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R '
44 J
R
R
R
R
R
R '
R
R
R
R
R
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
2 J
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
C-1
sflo^r^"
10 U'
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
66
10 U
38
10 U
10 U
10 U
25 U
25 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
47
10 U
10 U
"10 u
10 U
10 U
36
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
MHtmo At« KCOMVOTT H.VHM MCTOd
eoNMMMNr M-K ntmwmo m n* tuni
Octfoco DfffTcnoniwff
Mf * MJtCTCO ft VMOAf OM
-------
TABLE - A
NON-TARGET COMPOUND UST
SEMTVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS RESULTS
Groundwater, April 1991
Chemsdl Inc, Piscatawa'y, New Jersey
WELL IT
TW-02
TW-03
TW-04
TW-05
TW-5A
TW-06
TW-07
TW-08
TW-09
TW-10
TW-11
TW-12
TW-13
TW-14
TW-15 .
0"'-02
OW-04
OW-10
OW-11
C-l
FD-01
FD-02
FB-01
;
Sample" f ~
-'•' ~.>^ „*"*". T ',<,
61426-02-21
61426-02-22
61428-02-23 4
61428-02-24
61428-02.-2S . _..
61428-02-26
61428-^02-27 -
61426-02-28
61426-02-29
61428-02-30
61426-02-31
61428-02-32
61428-02-33
61428-02-34
61428-02-35
61426-02-37
61426-02-38
61426-02-39
61426-02-45
61426-02-46 .
61426-02-40
61428-02-47
61426-02-10
N-Nitroso
dimethyl
"" lagty ~
J' " „_ „ t",yr*$*&$fy_/jP
20 U
20 U
. 20 U .
200 U
. 200 U.
20 U
20 U -
100 U
20 U
20 U
20 U
20 U
20 U
20 U '
R
. 100 UJ
20 UJ
20 UJ
"20 UJ
R
20 UJ
R
20 U
Aiobenzene
' ~frg/L>
mK^i,^ ^m^m^m^mva^
20 U
20 U
20 U
200 U
_ 200 U
20 U
20 U
100 U •
20 U
20 U
20 U
20 U
20 U
20 U
20 U
100 UJ
20 UJ
20 UJ
20 UJ
200 U
20 UJ
20 U
20 U
(ug/L)
~T"° }",'*'"*''
50 U
50 U
50 U
500 U
500 U
50 U
50 U
250 U
50 U
R
50 U
50 U
50 U
50 U
50 U
250 UJ
50 UJ
50 UJ
50 UJ
500 U
50 UJ
50 U
50 U
Note: Missing data from wells TW-1 and OW-14ue to breakage during shipping. -
U - Undetected it quantitation limits given.
Quautitation limits are adjusted for dilution.
y An estimated concentration
R - Data rejected by validators
FD - indicates a field duplicate.
fg - indicates a field blank.
-------
TABLE - 5
PESnCtDES/PCBs RESULTS
Gfoundwater. April 1991
Clramsol hie. Plscalaway. New Jersey
WELLf TW-01 TW-02
Compound " '.'*"* M'?^
1™ ft ttlttm ' •. **
cnonn •• •• ..
bnoosunanii < •
4.4'-OOO >- * ^
EndoaulfanttiNaM 0
*,*' -oar ,-,^r~"
MMINAjRJNW {% ., -^^^^
Endriflktfoni "Vjt
EndrtnAWehyd* *;-{[]
•ipna-CMordaM "\i__
gamma-Chtordartt ;<
Toxaphww ' - %v
Aroclor-1018 ,> <$\
Arodor-1221 \ !< '|___
Aroclor-1232 • *$
Arodor-1242 < ..
AroctoM248
ArodOf-1254
Aroclor-1260 ..
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ •
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ '
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.50 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
5.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
2.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.50 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
5.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
2.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
TW-03
IMDMJ^
0.0028 JN
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.0062 JN
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.50 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
5.00 U
1.00 U
2.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
TW-04
(UBrl)
0.034 JP
0.05 UJ
0.014 JP
0.02S JP
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.0061 JP
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
.0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.057 JP
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.011 JP
0.05 UJ
5.0 UJ
1.0 UJ
2.0 UJ
1.0 UJ
1.0 UJ
1.0 UJ
1.0 UJ
1.0 UJ
TW-05 TW-05.
(Ufl/U >.., (bflrl) o
0.058 N
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.01 JN
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.0087 JN
0.10 UJ
0.0086 JN
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10. UJ
0.10 UJ .
0.50 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
5.00 ULL
1.00 UJ
ZOO UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
0.072 P
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.40
0.41
0.35
0.050 U
0.011 JP
0.720 P
0.1 U
1.0
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
1.1
0.5 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.05. U
0.05 U
5.0 U
1.0 U
2.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
10 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
TW-05
«tt4Mssr
0.069 P
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.37 i
0.38
0.29 ,
0.021 JP
0.05 U
0.65 P
0.1 0
0.94
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 If
-.1.0 [
.0.5 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
5.0 U
1.0 U
2.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
TW-5A TW-06
'BMfcS^BHOCT
:WV \ ,(utft)
0.014 JP ,.
0.05 UJ ,
0.05 UJ
0.015 JP .
0.05 UJ:,
0.05 UJ
0.0096 JP .
0.05 UJ
0.05 J -,
.,0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
, 0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0,10 UJ..
0.10 UJ
0.50 UJ.
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
5.0 UJ
1.0 UJ
2.0 UJ
1.0 UJ
1.0 UJ
1.0 UJ
1.0 UJ
1.0 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.50 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
5.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
ZOO UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
TW-07 TW-08
BH027 ""'K'Ott
.Cue/I)
0.05 UJ
.0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.009 JN
0.05 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.50 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
5.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
2.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.50 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.10 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
5,00 UJ
1.00 UJ
2.00 UJ
.00 UJ
.00 UJ
.00 UJ
.00 UJ
.00 UJ
-------
TABLE - 5
pEsnctor jfPCBs WSULTS
Groondwaler. Aprl 199}
Chemsol Inc. Ptecalaway, New Jersey
WELLf
Compound ,
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
dena-BHC
Heptachtor
Aldrin :
HeptacMorap
Endosulfanl
DMdrin
4.4' - DOG
Emtrtn
Endaaifanfc
4.4--OOO
fwutitmtMm* *ti
cnooaunanau
4,4f-DOT
• *-»«-'^-- fitlllW
MemraycrNOr
Endfln hetoM
W-09 TW-11 TW-11
i ^ffi8Mtt2*'|^«Mt>$1 '*<*»]• BHO31M3B!
. , ,^ 0.05 U
> 0.05 U
i ; 0.05 u
( <;. >,. , 0.05 U
: •;: . 0.05 U
it'/ . .0.05 U
Mkto<| 0.05 U
.. .J 0.05 U
U 0.10 U
, < \ . 0.10 U
;•.-";• aio u
:/..! aio u
! .w* 0.10 u
»8» '- 0.10 U
^ o 10 u
r ^ 0.50 U
v< 0.10 u
Endrto Aldehyde '% 0.10 U
atortt-CMordarw 0.05 U
oamma-Cntordar* ••* 0.05 U
Toxaphen*
Aroctor-1016
Aroctor-1221
ArockX-1232
Aroctor-1242
Aroclor-1248
AfOCkx-1254
AfOCkK-1260
.. ..; 5.00 u
v; t.oo u
2.00 U
1.00 U
.; 1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
0.05 U
0.05 U.
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
. 0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.50 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
5.0 U
1.0 U
2.0. U
.0 U
.0 U
.0 U
.0 U
.0 U
0.050 U
0.050 U
0.050 U
0.410
0.078 P
0.230
0.050 U
0.050 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.650 P
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 P
0.34 U
0.50 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
5.0 U
1.0 U
2.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
TW-11 TW-12
4D3iMSO * BH032 ;
(taO/l) (aoA) < „
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U.
0.47
0.15 P
0.043 JP
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.25 P
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.83
0.50 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
5.00 U
1.00 U
2.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
5.0 U
1.0 U
2.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
TW-13
iiUflt)
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.0087 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.50 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
5.0 U
1.0 U
2.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
TW-14
OW v >
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.50 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
5.0 U
1.0 U
2.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
TW-15
"BHMS^T*
JWJfl.) i
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.0096 U
0.10 U
0.10 U
0.50 U
o.r-o u
0.10 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
5.0 U
1.0 U
2.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
OW-01
BH036
(Uflt)
0.05
0.05
0.011
0.05
0.05
0.008
0.011
0.05
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
5.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
OW-02
UJ 0.05 UJ
UJ 0.034 J
JN 0.05 UJ
UJ 0.008 JN
UJ 0.05 UJ
JN 0.013 JN
JN 0.05 UJ
UJ 0.05 UJ
UJ 0.008 JN
UJ 0.1 UJ
UJ 0.1 UJ
UJ 0.1 UJ
UJ 0.1 UJ
UJ C.1 UJ
UJ 0.1 UJ
UJ 0.5 UJ
UJ 0.1 UJ
UJ 0.1 UJ
UJ 0.05 .UJ
UJ 0.05 UJ
UJ 5.0 UJ
UJ 1.0 UJ
UJ 2.0 UJ
UJ 1.0 UJ
UJ 1.0 UJ
UJ 1.0 UJ
UJ 1.0 UJ
UJ 1.0 UJ
OW-04
(u0/L)
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.015 JN
0.01 JN
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.017 JN
0.1 UJ
0.1 UJ
0.0079 J
0.1 UJ
0.1 UJ
0.029 JN
0.5 UJ
0.1 UJ
0.1 UJ
0.05 UJ
0.05 UJ
5.0 UJ
1.0 UJ
2.0 UJ
1.0 UJ
1.0 UJ
1.0 UJ
1.0 UJ
1.0 UJ
-------
TABLE - 5
PESndOES/PCBs RESULTS
Groundwaler. April 199 f
Chemsol Inc. Plscataway. New Jersey
WELLf . OW-10
SSST^?!
alpha-BHC .. - ^_
beta-BHC ,> ^_
delta-BHC * ^i__
gamma-BMC; ; ?
neptacnior , . ••>•••
AUrfn > ^_
nvDMunmi epOKiue) s
Endosutfanl . ";•;
OtokMn *ODE* ,-^_
Endrln j % ,s \^_
EndosuffanH i »,&i
4.4--DOO 'il^T
enoosunan •urunv %•%
4,4'.OOT., ,^ ;F
MothoxycMor - -'->|__
Endrln ketone ,-. - ; ;|__
Endrln AWehyd* - |__
alpha^Chlordane ^
gamma-Chlonlant •"*
Toxaphene ^f"
ArockMr-1016 ,;
Aroctor.1221
Aroctor-1232
Arodor-1242
Aroclor-1240
Aroctor-1254
ArochK-1260
BH039"
{00t> |
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.019
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
5.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
'OW.11
|PBHD4$^
^i.(ug/L> f-%
u ,
u
u
u •
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
U!
u.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.1
at
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
5.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
C-1
BHD46
><*>>
0.43
0.05
0.094
0.023
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.5
0.1
0.21
0.16
0.1
, 0.1
0.1
0.5
0.083
0.035
0.05
0.11
5.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
T*
N
UJ
N
JN
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
N
UJ
N
N
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
JN
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
FO-01
BHD40
0.062
0.050
0.050
0.0097
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.0094
0.10
0.0093
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
• 0.10
0.50
0.10
0.10
0.050
0.050
5.0
1.0
2.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
7r
N
UJ
UJ
JN
UJ
UJ
UJ
JN
UJ
JN
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
FB-01
(ug»u
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.0095
0.10
0.50
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.05
5.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
-VI
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
JN
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
FD-02
BHD4tT'
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.5 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
5.0 U
1.0 U
2.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
QUALIFIER LEGEND
U
B
Indicates compound was analyzed for but
not delected. QuanMatlon HmNs . ,
are adHrted for dilution. .
Indicates an estimated value. r .
TWs Hag Is used tor • pesticide target analyt*
wher. there Is greater than 25% difference tar •
detected concentrations between the two GC
columns. The lower concentration to reported
the -P- flag.
Anatyte was found In IffM) associated blank
as wsfl as the sample.
N- Indicates a presumptive evidence ola compound
NOTE:
Sample H)BHD30(welTW-10) was not analyzed
due to breakage during shipping.
-------
F-
TABLE *
2.3 J,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-para-DIOXIN RESULTS
Groundwater, April 1991
Chemsol Inc. Piscitawty. New Jersey
WELL*
2,3
C
Sample ID
7,8-TCDD 2,3,7,8-TCOD
blkCIED Dhl£CTED (
(noA) (no/0)
3ETECTION
LfMfT
TW-01
, TW-02
TW-03 -
TW-04
TW-05
TW-05
TW-05
TW-SA
TW-D6 „
~': TW-D7
TW-08
TW-09
TW-10
TW-11
TW-11
TW-11
TW-12
TW-13
TW-14
TW-1S
C-1
OW-02
OW-04
OW-10
OW-11
FB-01
FD-02
"fD-01
FEU SAMPLE
PEM SAMPLE
PEM SAMPLE
PEM SAMPLE
PEM SAMPLE
PEM SAMPLE
I PEM SAMPLE
PEM SAMPLE
€1428-01-20 v* ?<*
€1428-01-21 "-?"
€1428-01-23 ,'- <#
€1428-01 -24 VV
61428-01-24 MS'
€1428-01-24 MSO
€1428-01-25 ']'*'
€1428-01-26,^
61428-01-27"^;.'
€1428-01-28 "-^
€1428-01-29 •-*-
€1428-01-30 "~Se
€1428-01-31 V*
€1428-01-31 MS
€1428-01-31 MSO
€1428-01-32 - i
€1428-01-33 -
€1428-01-34 . ""
€1428-01-35 J-
61428-01-46 :-,
€1428-01-37 >
€1428-01-38 '".<,*',
€1428-01-39, ?:* '
€1428-01-45 :V;
€1428-01-10 ; -^
€1428-01-47 ?*$$,
€1428-01-40 iffi
£1428-01-48 ~zi?
€1428-01-49"^
€1428-01-50 %&,
€U2B-01-'5t ^1;!
€l42B-01-4f '<*$>?
€1426-01-42 -i»
€1428-01-45 *m
'«142B-01-44 ^'t;f
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
€.89
12.48
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND.
ND
ND
8.87
6.42
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.73
0.81
ND
ND
0.72
0.74
ND
ND
0.83
1.07
0.87
0.9
0.69
1.73
0.8
0.89
0.9
0.9
0.94
0.66
2,33
0.61
2.85
0.64
1.64
1.12
1.07
0.73
0.72
1.86
0.72
1.16
0.17
0.13
0.38
0.08
ND-NotOtt«ct»d - ~ "
PEM - Performance evtluitlon inalytit
MS - Matrix Spike Sample
MSD - Matrix Spiki Sample Duplicate
Note: OW-l not analyzed due to breakage In (Hipping
...» .4.- — -
-------
Compound
TW-01
MBFZ20
(uoA)
V -^ -. •W^NP*'
1W-02
MBFZ21
TABLE 7 - INORGANICS ANALYSIS
Groundwaler, April 1991
Chemsol, Inc., Piscatawiy, New Jersey
TW-03 TW-04 TW-05
MBFZ22 MBFZ23 MBFZ24
-------
Compound
r *>T£
AlUmlflUm -U.':i
: Antimony ..
Arsenic • ,
Barium ' *
Beryllium
i Cadmium >
Catehim ^)-
:lr•••'] 'I
;Lead ; \ti_
iMaovMsiunt
iManoanes* >_
i**""5^,^^
: NICKW f >
Potash wn<
:di .1. nl .<^ ^
ZMiwntum ' -.'^
I'SHver, ,- <
Sodium
Thaniom ...
Vanadium ^
:2mc %
iCyanikM \
TW-06
MBFZ26
fUQ^.1
f;^ -;.>
1910.0
17.0
2.0
314.0
1.0
3.0
65500.0
7.3
4.0
29.5
18000.0
10.1
8810.0
651.0
0.2
9.5
1030.0
4.0
5.0
14200.0
2.0
17.6
23.4
43.0
v" %T
u
u
u
u
B
U
U
8
B
U/NWJ
U
J
U/NJ
B
J
NM
7W-07
MBFZ27
* 509.0
17.0
2.8
1250.0
1.0
3.0
86400.0
3.0
4.0
6.7
2080.0
1.9
8570.0
2380.0
0.2
5.8
1050.0
4.0
5.0
11800.0
3.0
12.9
14.2
12.5
TABLE 7 - INORGANICS ANALYSIS
Groundwater, April 1991
Chemsol, Inc., Piscilaway, New Jersey
TW-08 TW-09
MBFZ28 MBFZ29
-------
Antimony
Barium •
'• Dot yf Nil Iti
Catetom
CobaM
Iron
Lead
Mi,
a
MangiiMM
Mwcury , ,.
Ntekrt - -
TABLE 7 - INORGANICS ANALYSIS
Groundwnler, Apt it 1991
Cheimol, Inc., PisctUwty, New Jersey
Sodium
: Vanadium
iZtoc
7W-12
MBFZ32
* '!""268.0*V*!t*J ""
17.0 U
3.6 B
399.0
- 1.0 U
, L 30 U
71400
6.6 B
4.0 U
4.0 U
, 60100
1 6.7
4520 B
213
^ 0.2 U
-f,l 6.6 B
s 678 B
>;,. 4.0 U/NW/J
5.0 . U
11000 J
2.0 U/NJ
40.0 B
115.0
10.0 U/NM
7W-13
MBFZ33
(OBrt.)
J 790.0 *J
17.0 U
2.0 U
406.0
1.0 U
3.0 U
63700
4.2 B
4.0 U
4.0 U
6580
3.8 JS
11200
412
0.2 U
5.0 U
1090 B
4.0 U/NW/J
5.0 U
18500 J
2.0 U/NWJ
8.2 B
15.1 B/J
10.0 U/N*J
TW-14
MBFZ34
8320 *J
17.0 U
5.4 B
543.0
1.0 U
3.0 U
60000
15.3
9.1 B
864.0
13600
18.1
14400
518
0.2 U
19.6 B
3610 B
n
5.0 U
9780 J
2.0 U/NWJ
25.3 B
58.6 J
26.1 N*J
TW-15
MBFZ35
*^" ^•*™"?**rs
1350 M
17 U
2 U
428
1 U
3 U
77100
5.6 B
4 U
4 U
3630
4.8
9470
363
0.2 U
5.8 B
1220 B
4 U/NWJ
5 U
11800 J
2 U/NW/J
8.7 B
18.1 B/J
10 U/NM
OW-02
MBFZ37
(uonj
7260 M
17.0 U
18.3
410
1.0 U
3.0 U
34500
31.4
6.5 B
4.0 U
10200
33.4
9550
6230
0.2 U
15.9 B
5110
4.0 U/NWJ
5.0 U
26100 J
2.0 U/NWJ
20.4 B
34.9 J
10.0 U/NM
OW-04
MBFZ38
L)
. *rf Y?/
21100 M
17.0 U
10.8
530
1.3 8
3.0 U
37300
46.5
42.9 B
17.2 B
26200
27.0 S
17400
7270
0.2 U
77.8
8010
4.0 U/NWJ
5.0 U
34200 J
2.4 B/NW/J
50.2
163.0
50.7 NM
Note OWM «u not analynd du» to brwkagt (Hiring stripping
-------
Cotnpound
X- *<«
?
Aluminum
Antimony;
Arsenic
: Barium ••
Beryllium
• Cadmium; (
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Morcury -
Ntekol
: Potassium
iSetonHim "-
!Sihwr "
Sodium -,-;
I Thallium '
Vanadium
iZJnc , •
Cyanid*
OW-10
MBFZ39
-------
TABLE 1 - INORGANICS ANALYSIS
G roundw ler, April 1991
Chemsol, Inc., Piscitaway, New Jersey
Key lo Qualifiers
• -•• ' -
- The dupllcflto bi|0ctlon pfvclslon wss not not.
N - Tlw aplked sampto racowwy was not wtthln control HrnHs.
W-TlM post-digestion aptke tor lumacvAA analysis Is oulsMa
ol Itw 85-1 15% control limits, white sainpto absorbanc*
Is IMS than 5OH of ttw aplka absortMnc*.
S - Tlw vahw raporl6d was iMwmlnMl by Itw Mflthod ol
Standard Additions (MSA).
• -OupHcata analysts was not wNMn control HmHs.
U - Hot detected at quanWaHon NmNs. Ouanffiatlon
•mNs ara ad|ust«l tor dilution.
J- Estimated vahM
B - Tlw reported vafcw h tan than Ins CRDt. but graalar
tnvi ttw IDL
«R» -Tnaf»uH« rotoetad by tt>« validators _
Key to Sample ID Numbers
•! '"*
OW - Sample taken from perched water zone well
TW - Sample taken from bedrock water table wed
C - Sample from the deep wen
FB- Sample was a fleld blank
TO - Sample was a IWd duplicate
-------
TABLE - 8
CONVENTIONAL WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS RJISULTS
Ground Water. April 1991
Chofnsol lnc.( Ptecataway, Now Jorsoy
Paranwtor
X s . - ;v*:, ;v7
coo fv^ ' -""X^,*
TOC J,<' , 'V^ ,'
MBAS > - , -^V- » .
Chtoffcfc
Sulfat* ',;<,,./•.
HartlnaM "" ^ '•*"' s, '
BromkM' "•• '-•"* "•
Total Phosphorus V\<: *-
Oil A Grafts* . ••-
1* I 1 tt .4 * I MM 1 li tftttltf . fr 1 I M
TSS / ^ ^
153 10
1.69 0.2
32 2
139 50
38.8 1
0.86 0.1
34.7 1
29.2 1
172 10
U 2
0.41 0.05
6.03 0.62
2.72 0.62
345 2
305 10
U 0.1
OW-10
153 10
U 0.2
U 2
5.2 5
1.4 1
0.19 0.1
7.9 1
27.2 1
196 10
U 2
0.054 0.05
U 0.41
U 0.41
9 2
227 '10
U 0.1
OW-11
23.8 10
U 0.2
U 2
26.4 5
26.5 1
0.13 0.1
8.7 1
67.5 5
80 10
U 2
0.9 0.05
U 0.43
U 0.43
403 2
203 10
U 0.1
TW-1
t '..^
178 10
U 0.2
. 4 2
16 5
4.5 1
0.11 0.1
40.2 1
16.6 1
252 10
U 2
0.157 0.05
0.4 0.4
U 0.4
281 2
295 10
U 0.1
TW-2
ItawR MM.
_.,„
145 10
U 0.2
4 2
16.4 S
2.8 1
U 0.1
11.3 1
7.8 1
164 10
U 2
0.098 0.05
1.63 0.47
0.93 0.47
166 2
203 10
U 0.1
TW-3
|MM> MK.
100 10.00
U 0.20
U ZOO
7.2 5.00
U .1.00
U 0.10
10.9 1.00
13.9 1.00
128 10.00
U 2.00
0.088 0.05
1.22 0.40
U 0.47
132 2.00
176 10.00
U 0.10
1W-4
•MM to.
j-_ \> %
121 10
U 0.2
38 2
458 SO
92.5 1
0.16 0.1
277 10
1.8 1
500 10
U 2
U 0.05
5.96 0.41
2.25 0.4
39 2
805 10
U 0.1
TW-S
- jj^ '5
216 10
U 0.2
184 2
450 SO
110 1
0.38 0.1
121 5
31.8 1
432 10
2.7 2
0.069 0.05
5.6 0.51
4.58 0.51
54 2
510 10
U 0.1
U - Contamlmnl was undMwtod
MDL - Minimum Mactton UmR
-------
TABLE - 8
CONVENTIONAL WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS RESULTS
Ground Water, April 1991
Chemsol Inc., Plscalaway, Now Jersey
Parameter
^A$^L^£$&!'31i£
Alkalinity
Ammonia '/ !- c" "" *
BOO ;' v*' i" - \>
coo , \C ,s, * * %
TOC - , -" :*';* '•.'*" <>
MBAs ,<*> Of '~ >'
Chloride < *
Sulfate ": * * -: ,:*
Hardness - l'< ' - " s
Bromide *•• \
Total Phosphorus . /:
Oil & Qrms* N -,,* . ,\
Total Rssiduaf CMonW . •',.
TW-5A
.^jr^r. ::. _
187 10.00
U 0.20
40 2.00
263 50.00
64 1.00
0.58 0.10
84.1 1.00
21.2 1.00
320 10.00
U 2.00
U 0.05
5.64 0.40
1 0.47
70 2.00
483 10.00
U 0.10
TW-06
•MM MK
188 10.00
U 0.20
7 2.00
16.8 5.00
4 1.00
0.2 0.10
11.2 1.00
26.6 1.00
208 10.00
U 2.00
0.091 0.05
0.89 0.42
U 0.41
78 2.00
275 10.00
U 0.10
TW-7
MM* HO.
237 10.00
U 0.20
3 2.00
5.2 5.00
4 1.00
U 0.10
18.7 1.00
15.5 1.00
268 10.00
U 2.00
0.058 0.05
0.57 0.46
U 0.53
36 2.00
318 10.00
U 0.10
TW-8
•Ml • KB.
165 10.00
U 0.20
16 2.00
67.7 50.00
12 1.00
0.12 0.10
18.2 1.00
29.9 1.00
248 10.00
U 2.00
0.213 0.05
2M 0.40
U 0.41
233 £00
255 10.00
U 0.10
TW-9
WMi HOI
181 10
U 0.2
2 2
U 5
1.8 1
U 0.1
10.3 1
11.8 1
196 10
U 2
0.053 0.05
1.13 0.43
U 0.5
60 2
238 10
u at
TW-10
UN* m.
127 10.00
U 0.20
2 £00
6.8 5.00
3.2 1.00
U 0.10
7.8 1.00
15.2 1.00
128 10.00
U 2.00
0.475 0.05
0.54 0.40
U 0.43
92 £00
181 10.00
U 0.10
TW-11
MlffA MM.
^..1.
313 10
U 0.20
36 £00
104 50
4 1.00
0.1 0.10
16.7 1.00
45 5.00
328 10.00
U 2.00
0.31 0.05
0.85 0.42
U 0.42
278 £00
398 10.00
U 0.10
TW-12
•Ml Ml
'
174 10
U 0.2
9 • 2
24.4 5
2.6 1
U 0.1
17.6 1
32.6 1
212 10
U 2
U 0.05
1.37 0.82
U 0.4
153 2
277 10
U 0.1
TW-13
•MI m.
(
201 10
U 0.2
U 2
7.6 5
1.4 1
U 0.1
25.7 1
25.1 1
228 10
U 2
0.072 0.05
0.43 0.4
U 0.41
34 2
292 10
U 0.1
U-Contaminant was undetected
MOL - Minimum Detection Urn
-------
TABLE - 8
CONVENTIONAL WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS RESULTS
Ground Walec. April 1991
(phontsol Inc., Ptecdtdway, Now Jorsoy
Pttr3ivi0t0f
..'^i;i^/*.:.>^r?.^v
Alkalinity
Ammonia * '
BOO
COD - i< - :
TOO
MBA9 > "^
ChMd* -< ;
Sulfato • -
HanfnaM —- ,
Bromkto
Total PnMpnflWi *
OII&QfMs*
TOIM i MIUMUHI nyurocwDons
TSS > , > 5 <\ s -
T09 *'> , ; -.<
total MMkialCiilarin*;
TW-14
rx-->'- -- ;„
126 10.00
U 0.20
10 2.00
75.7 50.00
2.3 1.00
U 0.10
39.1 1.00
28.9 1.00
260 10.00
U ^00
0.95 0.05
&21 0.51
1.67 0.48
696 2.00
258 10.00
U 0.10
TW-15
209 10.0
U 0.2
2 2.0
8.8 5.0
2.4 1.0
U 0.1
39.7 1.0
20.2 1.0
268 10.0
U 2.0
0.065 0.050
1.82 0.450
U 0.410
84 2.0
347 10.0
U 0.1
C-1
AM^R MOL
-
242 10
0.5 0.2
792 2
2470 50
445 1
1.62 0.1
369 5
123 5
900 10
U 2
0.076 0.05
36.8 0.43
20.7- 0.42
62 2
1460 10
U 0.1
FB-1
-
U 10.00
U 0.20
U 2.00
U 5.00
U 1.00
U 0.10
U 1.00
U 1.00
U 10.00
U 2.00
U 0.05
U 0.41
U 0.41
U 2.00
U 10.00
U 0.10
FD-1
•»•• m.
» _ --
223 10
U 0.2
95 2
474 50
124 1
0.68 0.1
132 5
37.4 1
416 10
U 2
U 0.05
11.3 0.46
4.92 0.46
76 2
638 10
U 0.1
FO-2
»m* MM.
S% ,
311 10
U 0.2
55 2.0
143 50
3.4 1.0
U 0.1
17.2 1.0
38 1.0
324 10.0
2.2 2.0
0.385 0.05
0.48 0.48
U 0.47
340 2
413 10
U 0.1
U - Contamlnanl was umtatoctod
MOL - Minimum Dotsctton UmR
-------
TABLE 9
COMPARISON OP GROUNDWATER DATA TO ARARs AND
OTHER CRITERIA
O
00
23°
oo
Vta|ICM«M»
9WWNO MOW
FF8DATA
ApHI. 1»1
1400
TW-14
TW-««
TW-01
FEDERAL
6OWA
VMM
• . MCL
100 MCL
IMl MCL
• MCL
7 MCL
100 MCL
MO MCL
• MCL
KM MCL
MM
MCL
MCL
MCL
MCL
MCL
NJ
8OWA
MCL
. I
4
MM
t
t
Mk
M
t
I
M
1
I
44
U8EPAHMM
iw
T
10*
199
7M
too
a
M.OOt
-------
TABLE 9 (CONTINUED)
FFBPATA
April. IMt
FEDERAL
8DWA
MJ80WA
MCt
U8EPAHMM
M.0-
tA4-Tl
*.4>-Tl
Ml
Ml
Ml
Mt
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
MA
rat
401
Ml
Ml
Ml
Mt
NA
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
NA
Ml
42
It*
«J
MJ
IWJ
HtMO
n
IM
II
IWJ
Mt
tM
I4J
OW-04
•0*
7f
MCL
MCL
C-l
C-l
C-l
C-l
C-l
C-l
TW-tT
C-l
71
M
•.MM
1
IN
•-8HC
k-8HO
4-8HC
t-BHC
4.4--OOO
4.4--OOE
PC8 l»4«
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
MZ1
nat
IMJ
•.43 N
•.•94 J
•.W4N
•.•25 JP
• 0002JN
• WM7JN
•.•IIJN
C-l
C-l
C-l
C-l
C-t
ow-et
C-l
ow-«t
C-t
C-t
ow-tt
C-l •
TW-«4
TW-«*
TWMM
TW-OS
CW-OI
MCL
M
•J
-------
08
go DO
00
TABLE 9 (CONTINUED)
f^u«^_fe^
OnMMMM
CelMll
COMMT
CpmUo
FF8DATA
April. tOOt
.-•• ..'X A'4 */ i
tiat tt.too
1/11 47.6 J
1J/J1 M.9
tiat >OM
11/21 tn.ooo
toat 4o.«
rni 4t.0
•at 004
oat TO MJ
t1Ot 04,000 J
OW-4M
C-1
ow-a
TW-04
C-1
OW-04
OW-44
TW-14
TW-4M
IW-tl
OW-M
1W-«4.C-t
ftni
mi
tun
tiat
em
tiat
Mat
Mat
IW-tt
7IMJ
MM
C-t
•OJ
ta
FEDERAL
BOWA
1M
W
1.000
WOO
IN
MCt
MCL
NJSOWA
MCL
1.000
30
1,000
MO
50 _
M
50,000
•;ooo
USEPAHMMl
S
MM
MCL-I
J-
A
•MCL-1
WAolki^Hl
•W ^HHi
(M«t
M
-------
TABLE -10
ALTERNATIVE 2 - EXTRACTION AND TREATMENT WITH
DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WATER
Summary of Costs to Implement
Capital O&M
EXTRACTION SYSTEM * - - ~ :
installation and Development of
Extraction Walls
Installation and Development
ofTranchas
Trenches and Fill
Sumps and Coliaction aystam
Disposal of axcavatad soils
Monitoring
Subtotal 1
TREATMENT SYSTEM <-' -
Air atrippar
Off-gas carbon bad
Bio-traatmant
Clarifiar
Filtration
Carton polishing
Sludge traatmant and disposal
Subtotal 2
DISPOSAL - -
Discharge pipa
Tamp. MCUA Use
Discharge Monitoring
Subtotal 3
Sum of subtotais(i*2*3)
APPURTENANCES
Building
Fencing
Electrical (20.5%)
Instrumentation (8%)
Piping (10%)
Pipe insulation/Heating
Appurtenance Subtotal
Subtotal
ALLOWANCES -' <:- * " '
Engineering (25H)
Contingency (25H)
$253300
•— : '
$118.320
$156.000
$448.000
$12.800
$989,000
*"•.•"
$45.000
$26.000
$140.000
$45.000
$140.000
$20.000
$127,000
$543,000
~ *
$19.000
$6.400
$100,000
$125.400
$1.657.400
$200,000
$40.000
$339.767
$132J92
$165,740
$20.000
$898.099
$2.555.000
^*-<
$638,750
$638,750
$1,000
$228.500
$229^00
. ""- ""."';•&
$40,000
$312.000
$7,400
$10.000
$10.000
$25,000
$42.000
$446,000
- - ^ -r-^^
$1,910
$54400
$56.410
$731.910
- -i
$732,000
.. \,.,#'s\ %V»;' ,,i^
$183,000
Economte.Analy5l«<-,i?''C?-:>^^^»' -^ < '~~v~j^
Total t3.833.000 $915.000
Present worth of O&M $3.867,000
Total present worth $7.700.000
Major Cost Assumptions tor Atl Coat Anrtyxr
[11 For present worth calculations: Interest rate-10%. taflatJon^% and
project Ufe» 6 yaan
[2] Where needed, costs were updated using the ENR forecasted conatruction
cost Index for Dacembar 1991 (4895)
J3] Totals were rounded to the nearest thousand
[4] Contingencies were applied to both capital coats and O&M coats
-------
TABU 11 - APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
Air Emissions Requirements (EPA Offices of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (OSHER) Directive 9355.0-28)
Clean Water Act, Water Quality Criteria (33 U.S.C.
§1314) (May l, 1987 - Gold Book)
Clean Water Act, Protection of Wetlands (33 U.S.C.
§1344)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR
50)
New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards (NJAC 7:9-4
£& sea.) (August 1989)
New Jersey Ambient Air Quality Standards (NJAC 7:27-13)
• Executive Order on Wetlands Protection (CERCLA Wetlands
Assessments) I 11990
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC §661 e£
fififl.)
• Wetlands Construction and Management Procedures (40 CFR
6, Appendix A)
New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Act and Requirements
(NJSA 13:98-1)
•
• Flood Hazard Control Act Requirements (Stream
Encroachment) (NJAC 7:8-3.15 and NJSA 58:16A-15 s£
fififl.)
• RCRA Manifesting, Transport and Recordkeeping
Requirement? (40 CFR 262)
RCRA Wastewatfc Treatment System Standards (40 CFR 264,
Subpart X)
RCRA Corrective Action (40 CFR 264.101)
RCRA Storage Requirements (40 CFR 264; 40 CFR 265,
Subparts I and J)
• Off-Site Transport of Hazardous Waste (EPA OSWER
Directive 98-4.11)
»
• RCRA Excavation and Fugitive Dust Requirements (40 CFR
264.251 and 264.254)
-------
TABLE 11 (CONTINUED)
RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (40 CFR 268) (On and
off-site disposal of sludges or excavated soil)
Clean Water Act - NPDES Permitting Requirements for
Discharge of Treatment System Effluent (40 CFR 122-125)
Clean Water Act Discharge to Publicly-Owned Treatment
Works (POTW) (40 CFR 403)
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPs) (40 CFR 61)
DOT Rules for Hazardous Materials Transport (49 CFR
107, 171.1-171.500)
Occupational Safety and Health Standards for Hazardous
Responses and General Construction Activities (29 CFR
1940, 1910, 1926)
New Jersey Volatile Organic Substances Air Emissions
Control Requirements (NJAC 7:27-16)
New Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NJPDES) and Effluent Limitations
New Jersey Water Supply Management Act
(N.J.S.A. 58:1A-1)
New Jersey Well Drillers and Pump Installers Act
(N.J.S.A. 58:4A-4.1 e_t secr.l
New Jersey Toxic Substances Air Pollution Control
Requirements (NJAC 7:27-17)
New Jersey Pretreatment Requirements for Sanitary Sewer
Discharges
New Jersey Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act
Requirements (NJSA 4:24-42 and NJAC 2:90-1.1 fit C£9-)
New Jersey Air Pollution Definitions and General
Provisions (NJAC 7:27-5)
National Historic Preservation Act
MCUA Pretreatment Requirements
------- |