EPA/AMD/R02-95/251
September 1995
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision Amendment:
Caldwell Trucking Company
Fairfield Township, NJ
2/28/95
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION AMENDMENT
CALDWELL TRUCKING COMPANY SITE
>catioi
Caldwell Trucking Company
Fairfield Township, Essex County, New Jersey
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This Record of Decision (ROD) Amendment documents the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) selection of a modified
remedy for the Caldwell Trucking Company site. The modified
remedy was selected in accordance with the requirements of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §9601 et sea.. and to
the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300. This document
explains the factual and legal basis for amending the remedy for
the Caldwell Trucking Company site. An administrative record for
the site, established pursuant to the NCP, 40 CFR 300.800,
contains the documents that form the basis for EPA's selection of
the remedial action.
The State of New Jersey concurs with the selected remedy only if
institutional controls, which include but are not necessarily
limited to deed restrictions, are established for the site.
Haent of the site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
Caldwell Trucking Company site, if not addressed by implementing
the response action selected in this ROD Amendment, may present
an imminent and substantial threat to public health, welfare or
the environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
The remedial action described in this document addresses
contaminated soils at the Caldwell Trucking Company site. It
represents a modification of the remedy for contaminated soils
selected in the initial ROD (September 1986) and subsequent
Explanation of Significant Differences (February 1993) for the
site. The previous remedy included the treatment of contaminated
soils and placement of the treated soils in a landfill to be
constructed at the site. The modified remedy, developed as a
result of a study undertaken by a group of potentially
responsible parties, eliminates the need for construction of the
on-site landfill while providing a similar degree of protection
to human health and the environment. The major components of the
selected remedy are as follows:
-------
Excavation and off-site disposal of 1650 cubic yards of
California List waste materials;
Excavation and off-site treatment and disposal of all soils
with concentrations of volatile organic compounds over
100 milligrams per kilogram;
• In-situ stabilization of 29,500 cubic yards and 5,200 cubic
yards of contaminated soil in the central lagoon area and
north lagoon area, respectively, forming a low permeability
solidified mass;
• Placement of two feet of clean soil over the solidified mass
to allow for revegetation of the areas; and
Appropriate environmental monitoring to ensure the
effectiveness of the remedy.
Declaration of Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy meets the requirements for remedial a•tions
set forth in CERCLA §121, 42 U.S.C. §9621: (1) it is protective
of human health and the environment; (2) it attains a level or
standard of control of the hazardous substances, pollutants and
contaminants, which at least attains the legally applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements under federal and state
laws; (3) it is cost-effective; (4) it utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment (or resource recovery)
technologies to the maximum extent practicable; and (5) it
satisfies the statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element.
Because this remedy will result in contaminants remaining on the
site above health-based levels (although in a stabilized form), a
review will be conducted within five years after the commencement
of the remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to
provide adequate protection to human health and the environment.
William J. Mtf§zynskj^I>.E. Date
Deputy Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA, Region II
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION AMENDMENT
CALDWELL TRUCKING COMPANY SITE
BITE BACKGROUND
Caldvell Trucking Company (Caldwell) was a sewage hauling and
disposal firm located at 222 Passaic Avenue in Fairfield
Township, New Jersey. The site consists of Lot 17 of Block 2201
and Lots 7, 18 and 20 of Block 2302 on the Fairfield Township tax
map, in an area zoned for industrial use. The site also includes
those areas affected by the plume of contaminated ground water.
The West Essex Regional High School is located approximately
200 feet to the east. Approximately 45 small businesses are
situated within one mile of the site, and the nearest major
residential area is about 1000 feet to the northeast.
Caldwell disposed of residential and commercial septic waste, as
well as industrial waste, in unlined lagoons on the site from the
early 1950's until about 1973. When the lagoons were full, they
were backfilled and a new series of lagoons were dug, sometimes
over pre-existing lagoons. From 1973 to the early 1980s, wastes
were consolidated in four underground storage tanks prior to
disposal off the site.
1986 Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
In June 1986, EPA completed a Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the site. The RI/FS was conducted
to identify the types, quantities, and locations of contaminants,
and to develop ways of addressing the contamination problems.
The RI delineated the horizontal and vertical extent of the
contamination in the former lagoons, and confirmed the presence
of a downgradient plume of contaminated ground water. Metals,
primarily lead, cadmium and mercury, volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected in on-site
subsurface soils. Lead, PCBs, and PAHs were also detected in on-
site surface soils. Lead is the primary metal of concern in both
the surface and subsurface, soils. Ground water is contaminated
with VOCs, including trichloroethylene and 1,1,1-trichloroethane.
A risk assessment was performed as part of the 1986 RI/FS. This
information is available for review in the Administrative Record
for the 1986 Record of Decision (ROD).
Based on the results of the RI/FS, site remediation was divided
into four remedial phases or components. Remedies for the first
three components were selected in the 1986 ROD. The fourth
-------
component, which deals with the contaminated ground water, is
being dealt with under a second ROD signed in 1989. • This ground
water component is not affected by the proposed ROD Amendment.
r.-e. ROD Remedy ' -
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) selected
the following remedial actions in the 1986 ROD:
First Component
• Restoration of the water quality in Municipal Well No. 7 to
drinking water quality standards, through a treatment
process known as "air-stripping".
Second Component
• Provision of an alternative water supply for residents
potentially affected by ground water contamination
associated with the site.
Third Component
• Excavation and treatment (by the addition of heat) of
approximately 28,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils and
waste materials; and
• Placement of the treated waste in a secure landfill to be
constructed on the site in accordance with the requirements
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The Township of Fairfield subsequently chose not to provide
treatment for Municipal Well No. 7, but rather decided to utilize
water provided by the Passaic Valley Water Commission as an
alternative potable water supply for the entire community. EPA
issued an ESD in May 1991, to explain the deletion of the
Municipal Well No. 7 component of the remedy.
In the summer of 1989, EPA connected 55 residential properties
and nine commercial establishments to the municipal water system.
This fulfilled the second remedial component of the 1986 ROD.
In 1987, EPA initiated a remedial design for the third component
of the 1986 ROD involving the contaminated soils and waste
materials at the site. Initial design activities focused on
further characterization of the soils and waste materials, and
restoration of the water quality in Municipal Well No. 7. In the
summer of 1990, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted field
-------
investigations designed to measure air emissions from on-site
activities during test pit excavations, and to collect
geotechnical data involving the subsurface soils.
At the time of the RI/FS, EPA believed that sludge waste at the
site was limited to the existing surface lagoon, and that the
waste remaining in this lagoon would be best treated by the same
processes intended to be used for soil treatment. However, the
results of the remedial design investigations indicated that the
volume of sludge at the site was greater than originally
estimated. In addition, new information about the levels and
combinations of contaminants in the sludges, and also in some
site soils, indicated that additional treatment would be required
prior to disposal.
The remedial design investigations also provided additional
information about the buried sludge lagoons. Some sludges have
concentrations of lead over 100,000 milligrams per kilogram
(mg/kg); others contain halogenated organic compounds (HOCs),
such as trichloroethylene or perchloroethylene, at total
concentrations greater than 1000 mg/kg, as well as high
concentrations of lead. Under the RCRA regulations found at
40 C.F.R. § 268.32, any waste with this combination of
contaminants is classified as a "California List" waste, and
cannot be land disposed without treatment. 40 C.F.R. Part 268
prescribes incineration as the treatment method for all
"California List" wastes.
In addition, the results of testing during the remedial design
indicated that some of the other soil and waste materials also
exhibited high lead levels; these were classified as RCRA
characteristic hazardous wastes because of their toxicity. If
these RCRA hazardous wastes are excavated, they must meet
specific RCRA treatment standards, known as Land Disposal
Restrictions, before being placed in a land disposal unit.
1993 Explanation of Significant Differences
In February 1993, as a result of the additional information
gathered in the remedial design, EPA modified the remedy selected
in the 1986—ROD for treatment and disposal of the contaminated
soils and other waste materials, as follows:
Excavation (as described in the 1986 ROD) of 35,000 cubic
yards of contaminated soils and other waste materials (an
increase of 7,000 cubic yards compared to the volume
estimated in the 1986 ROD);
-------
Off-site disposal and treatment of approximately 1650 cubic
yards of California List waste materials (a new component
that replaced the on-site thermal treatment of high
concentrations of VOC contaminated soils);
Stabilization, of the lead contaminated soils remaining on
the site, prior to their placement in the RCRA landfill (an
additional component needed to comply with RCRA land
disposal restrictions);
Treatment to reduce the VOCs in contaminated soils to
acceptable levels (to be accomplished by off-site treatment
and disposal of the high VOC content California List wastes,
and by the reduction and treatment of the remaining VOCs in
the soils during the stabilization process, rather than in a
separate low temperature thermal treatment system as
described in the 1986 ROD); and
• Placement of the treated soils in a secure on-site landfill,
as described in the 1986 ROD (to be constructed in
accordance with RCRA and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
requirements).
The off-site treatment and disposal of California List waste
materials with high levels of VOCs, and stabilization of the lead
contaminated soils that would also reduce the VOCs remaining in
the soils, were modifications of the remedy selected in the
1986 ROD. These VOC treatment methods replaced the low
temperature thermal treatment method described in the ROD.
In September 1994, a group of eight potentially responsible
parties (PRPs), under EPA oversight, completed the excavation and
off-site treatment and disposal of the California List waste
materials, and removed the underground storage tanks.
ENFORCEMENT HISTORY
In April 1993, EPA issued a unilateral Administrative Order
(UAO), Index No. II-CERCLA-93-0102, to 11 potentially responsible
parties to implement the existing remedy. In June 1993, EPA
issued a second UAO, Index No. II-CERCLA-93-0104, to 15 PRPs to
conduct a pre-design ground water investigation. Nine PRPs
agreed to comply with both UAOs, and formed the Caldwell Trucking
Company Site Trust (the Trust). On March 30, 1994, EPA, the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and the
U.S. Department of Interior lodged a consent agreement with the
U.S. District Court, under which the Trust will perform the
remedial work to contain the contaminated ground water plume, in
addition to the site work which they are undertaking under both
UAOs.
-------
1994 FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY
In October 1993, the Trust conducted bench-scale studies to
evaluate the effectiveness of stabilization on site-specific
contaminated soil. In January 1994, the Trust presented EPA and
NJDEP with the results of the bench-scale studies. These studies
indicated that, after the California List waste materials and
other soils with high concentrations of VOCs were treated and
disposed of off site, stabilization of the remaining wastes in
place might be as effective in protecting human health and the
environment as the existing stabilization and landfilling remedy.
This would be accomplished by forming a solid and durable
concrete mass (in-situ stabilization/solidification), with a low
permeability of 1 X 10"* (one in a hundred thousand) centimeters
per second (cm/sec).
As a result, in March 1994, EPA approved the Trust's request that
it be allowed to prepare a focused feasibility study (FFS), which
is a feasibility study with a limited scope, to evaluate in-situ
stabilization/solidification as an alternative remedy for the
remaining soil contamination at the site. The purpose of the FFS
was to demonstrate that an in-situ stabilization/ solidification
technology would be effective at the Caldwell Trucking site, and
to evaluate whether this technology would be protective of human
health and the environment.
Two remedial alternatives were compared in the FFS. The first
alternative consists of the remedy presented in the 1986 ROD, as
modified by the 1993 BSD; this alternative includes stabilization
of the non-California List waste material and placement in an on-
site landfill. The second alternative consists of in-situ
stabilization/solidification of the non-California List waste
material and installation of a soil cover.
The information presented regarding Alternative 1, stabilization
and landfilling, is based on an EPA design for this remedy that
was prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and modified by
the Trust pursuant to the UAO. The information presented
regarding Alternative 2, in-situ stabilization/solidification, is
based upon information gathered from current industry literature,
the use of "this technology at another Superfund site, and bench-
scale testing conducted in October 1993 utilizing soils from the
Caldwell Trucking site.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The FFS and Proposed Plan for this ROD Amendment were released to
the public for comment on October 25, 1994. These documents were
made available to the public in the administrative record file at
information repositories located at the Town Clerk's Office,
-------
Fairfield Township, New Jersey and EPA's Region II Office in New
York City. A Notice for these documents was published in the
Caldwell Progress on November 3, 1994. A public comment period
was held from October 25, 1994 to November 25, 1994. In
addition, a public meeting to discus -lie proposed change to the
remedy was held at the Town Hall in Fairfield on November 9,
1994. No comments were made by the public concerning the
proposed change at this meeting. In addition, no comments were
received by EPA during the public comment period. A summary of
the public meeting is addressed in the Responsiveness Summary.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives are specific goals to protect human
health and the environment; they specify the contaminant (s) of
concern, the exposure routes, receptors, and acceptable
contaminant levels for each exposure route. For the Caldwell
site, they are:
Prevent exposure through dermal contact with and/ or
ingestion of California List waste materials.
Prevent exposure through dermal contact with and/or
ingestion of contaminated soil with VOCs greater than
100 mg/kg.
Prevent exposure through dermal contact with and/or
ingestion of contaminated soil containing heavy metals, such
as lead, cadmium and mercury*
Inhibit leaching of site contaminants from the soil into the
ground water by stabilizing all contaminated soil with
concentrations of lead greater than 1000 mg/kg, and cadmium
greater than 3 mg/kg.
Mitigate any unacceptable risks to human or ecological
receptors from the inhalation of contaminants released from
soil on the site to the air.
DESCRIPTION-DP ALTERNATIVES
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, requires that
selected site remedies be protective of human health and the
environment, be cost effective, comply with other laws, and
utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technolo-
gies and resource recovery alternatives to the maximum extent
practicable. In addition, CERCLA includes a preference for the
use of treatment as a principal element for the reduction of
toxicity, mobility or volume of the hazardous substances.
-------
This amended ROD evaluates two remedial alternatives for
addressing soil contamination associated with the Caldwell
Trucking site.
These alternatives are:
Alternative 1: Stabilization/Landfill
Capital Cost: $13,194,000
Annual operation and Maintenance (O & M) Cost: $:<*9,000
Present Worth Cost: $15,539,000
Construction Time: 1.5 years
Alternative 1 is the existing remedy; it includes:
• Excavation, off-site treatment and disposal of approximately
1650 cubic yards of California List waste materials;
Excavation and stabilization of about 29,500 cubic yards of
non-California List waste material in the central lagoon
area and 5,200 cubic yards of contaminated soil in the north
lagoon area, which will immobilize the heavy metals and
reduce the remaining VOCs in the contaminated soils to an
acceptable level; and
«
Placement of the treated wastes in an on-site RCRA/TSCA
landfill, with a double liner and leachate collection
system.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on the site, CERCIA requires that the site be reviewed every five
years. If justified by the review, additional remedial actions
may be implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
Alternative 2: Stabilization/Solidification
capital Cost: $8,384,000
Annual O & M Cost: $93,000
Present Worth Cost: $9,538,000
Construction Time: 0.75 year
Alternative 2 includes:
Excavation, off-site treatment and disposal of approximately
1650 cubic yards of California List waste materials;
Excavation, and off-site treatment and disposal of
contaminated soils with concentrations of VOCs greater than
100 mg/kg;
-------
In-situ stabilization/solidification of about 29,500 cubic
yards and 5,200 cubic yards in the central lagoon area and
north lagoon area, respectively, forming a solid and durable
low permeability concrete mass, referred to as "th-s
solidific^ mass"; and
Placement of two feet of clean soil over the solidified mass
and revegetation of the areas.
Because this alternat-i^e would result in contaminants remaining
on the site, CERCLA requ.'res that the site be reviewed every five
years. If justified by the review, additional remedial actions
may be implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
In selecting a remedy, EPA considered the factors set out in
Section 121 of CERCL7.. 42 U.S.C. §9621, by conducting a detailed
analysis of the remedial alternatives pursuant to Section
300.430(e)(9) of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA assessed the individual
alternatives against each of nine evaluation criteria and
compared the relative performance of each alternative against
those criteria.
The following "threshold" criteria must be satisfied by any
alternative in order to be eligible for selection:
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment
addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate
protection and describes how risks posed through each
exposure pathway are eliminated, reduced or controlled
through treatment, engineering controls or institutional
controls.
2. Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all
of the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
of federal and state environmental statutes and require-
ments, or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
The following "primary balancing" criteria are used to make
comparisons and to identify the major trade-offs between
alternatives.
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability
of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health
and the environment over time, once cleanup goals have been
met. It also addresses the magnitude and effectiveness of
the measures that may be required to manage the risk posed
by treatment residuals and/or untreated wastes.
8
-------
4. Reduction of toxicity. mobility, or volume •through treatment
refers to a remedial technology's expected ability to reduce
the toxicity, mobility or volume of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants at the site.
5. Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed
to achieve protection, and any adverse impacts on human
health and the environment that may be posed during the
construction and implementation period until cleanup goals
are achieved.
6. Implementability is the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of
materials and services needed to implement a particular
option.
7. Cost includes estimated capital and operation and
maintenance costs, and the present worth costs.
The following "modifying" criteria are considered fully after the
formal public comment period on the Proposed Plan is complete:
8. State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of
the FFS report and Proposed Plan, the state supports,
opposes, and/or has identified any reservations with the
preferred alternative.
9. Community acceptance refers to the public's general response
to the alternatives described in the Proposed Plan and the
FFS.
A comparative analysis of these alternatives based upon the
evaluation criteria noted above follows.
Threshold Criteria
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 1 provides protection of human health and the
environment through removal and off-site disposal of the
California List waste materials, a major source of the ground
water contamination. In addition, the remaining contaminated
materials in the central lagoon area and the contaminated soils
in the north lagoon area would be excavated and stabilized prior
to placement in a RCRA/TSCA landfill to be constructed on the
site. The landfill would encapsulate and isolate the stabilized
material to prevent infiltration of rain, surface water runoff,
and ground water. The landfill cap would prevent exposure
through direct contact with the stabilized material.
Alternative 2 provides the same level of protection of human
health and the environment as Alternative 1. The California List
-------
waste materials, a major source of the ground water contamina-
tion, would be sent off site for treatment and disposal.
Similarly, all soils with concentrations of VOCs over loo mg/kg
would be sent off site for treatment and disposal. The remaining
contaminated soils in the central lagoon area and in the north
lagoon area would be stabilized in place, forming a low
permeability solidified mass. This stabilization method creates
a solid and durable mass which would practically eliminate the
flow of water through the treated soil. Two feet of clean soil
would be added to cover the solidified pass. This will allow
revegetation of the area, reduce the potei.«-.ial for direct contact
with the solidified mass, and prevent erosion.
Compliance with ARARs
Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) are
those federal and State environmental and public health
regulations that apply to remedial activities at the site. There
are three types of ARARs: chemical-specific, which are health- or
risk-based concentration limits; location-specific, which are
based on the geographical location of une site and its
surroundings; and action-specific, which are controls on
particular types of remedial activities.
Chemical-Specific ARARs
There are no federal or state chemical-specific cleanup standards
promulgated for the cleanup of the contaminated surface and
subsurface soils at the Caldwell Trucking site. However, EPA and
NJDEP agreed upon objectives for the cleanup of the contaminated
soil based on a future industrial use of the site. These
objectives are shown in Table 1. Both Alternative 1 and
Alternative 2 will achieve these cleanup objectives.
Action-Specific ARARs
Both alternatives are expected to attain the following action-
specific ARARs: the Clean Air Act National Emissions Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 C.F.R. Part 61), New Jersey Air
Permit Requirements (NJAC 7:27-8), New Jersey Control and
Prohibition of Air Pollution by Toxic Substances (NJAC 7:27-17),
and New Jersey Regulations for Volatile Organic Substances
(NJAC 7:27-16).
Alternative 1 requires a waiver of the NJDEP Hazardous Waste
Regulations found at NJAC 7:26-10.8e-7, because the landfill
would not be located a sufficient distance from a neighboring
property to comply with the siting criteria. As part of the
remedial design for the existing remedy, EPA and NJDEP agreed to
waive this ARAR. Alternative 2 would not trigger these siting
criteria; therefore, no waivers are necessary.
10
-------
Alternative 1 would comply with RCRA land disposal restrictions
(LDRs) for the placement of the stabilized soil into an on-site
landfill. Stabilization would comply with the treatment
requirements that specify that a RCRA hazardous waste must be
treated prior to placement at a disposal facility. Alternative 2
would not invoke LDRs because these activity-based limitations do
not apply when the waste material is treated in place.
Nonetheless, stabilization of the contaminated soils under
Alternative 2 would achieve standards equivalent to the LDRs for
the treated soils.
Both alternatives would comply with the action-specific
requirements of RCRA, the U.S. Department of Transportation
regulations, and the New Jersey Solid and Hazardous Waste
Regulations regarding the handling and shipment of California
List wastes and other contaminated soils which would be sent off
site for treatment and disposal. In addition, both alternatives
would meet the RCRA LDR treatment standards for the proper off-
site treatment and disposal of the California List wastes and the
soils contaminated with high levels of VOCs.
Location-Specific ARARs
Both alternatives are expected to meet the requirements of the
Executive Order on Wetlands Protection (EO 11980), Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act, and Section 7:7A of the New Jersey
Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act.
Primary Balancing Criteria
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Both alternatives would equally reduce the magnitude of residual
risk through the off-site treatment and disposal of California
List wastes and soils contaminated with high amounts of VOCs, and
stabilization of the remaining contaminated soils. The
containment of stabilized soils in an on-site hazardous waste
landfill (Alternative 1) or via in-situ stabilization/
solidification (Alternative 2) would provide comparable
reductions in the baseline risk estimates developed as part of
the 1986 RI/FS.
As required by CERCLA, both alternatives would require a five-
year review to evaluate site conditions. If justified by the
review, additional remedial actions may be implemented to remove
or treat the wastes.
The isolation of the treated waste materials in either a capped
hazardous waste landfill (Alternative 1) or a solidified mass
with a two foot clean soil cover (Alternative 2) would limit
potential exposure of human or ecological receptors to treated
waste .materials to a similar degree. Because of concerns that
11
-------
organic constituents could adversely affect the permanence of the
solidified mass associated with Alternative 2, sampling would be
performed during the remedial design to verify that the selected
reagent mix used for stabilization would create a solidified mass
with long-term durability.
Both alternatives would reduce leachate generation to an
acceptable level. Both alternatives would reduce migration of
contaminants to ground water underlying the Caldwell Trucking
site. Alternative 1 would rely on stabilization to immobilize
the contaminants, then placement of the treated wastes into ~*n
on-site landfill with a double liner, leachate collection system,
and a hazardous waste cap. This landfill cap would have a low
permeability of 1 x 10"6 cm/sec, which would isolate these
materials from water that might infiltrate through the cap
material. Alternative 2 would encapsulate the treated materials
in a low permeability (1 x 10"* cm/sec) solidified mass located
above the water table. Leachate would not be generated from the
solidified mass, and infiltration of rain and surface wa_^r
runoff through the mass would be practically eliminated because
of its low permeability.
Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility/ or Volume
The alternatives would each achieve essentially equivalent
reductions in toxicity, mobility or volume of the soils to be
treated. Both alternatives would reduce the toxicity, mobility
and volume of the California List wastes through the off-site
incineration of these materials. Alternative 2 would further
reduce the toxicity and volume of the contaminated soils at the
site by the off-site treatment and disposal of those soils with
VOCs greater than 100 mg/kg. Alternative 1 would not directly
reduce the intrinsic toxicity or volume of the contaminated
soils. Stabilization, under both alternatives, would increase
the volume of treated waste material at the site; however, the
mobility of these constituents would be initially reduced by
chemical stabilization. Secondary reduction in mobility would be
obtained either by containment in a hazardous waste landfill
(Alternative 1) or encapsulation in a subsurface concrete-like
solidified mass (Alternative 2). Both alternatives would be
expected to effectively immobilize the hazardous constituents
remaining irfthe soil.
Short-Term Effectiveness
For either alternative, an air monitoring program and engineering
controls will be used to limit any airborne dust and emissions
from the site during construction. Both alternatives would
require the implementation of a health and safety plan to
minimize any risks to on-site workers, employees in nearby
industrial and commercial facilities, and other members of the
public. Alternative 2 would generate somewhat less VOCs, odor
12
-------
and dust emissions than Alternative 1, by eliminating soil
excavation, aboveground handling and treatment, and overland
transport of treated residual materials to an on-site landfill.
Construction time would also be reduced under Alternative 2,
because the action may be completed in nine months, as compared
to 18 months for Alternative 1.
Under Alternative 1, construction of an on-site hazardous waste
landfill and backfilling of the central lagoon area excavation
would require approximately 5,000 trucks carrying 100,000 cubic
yards of construction materials. Alternative 2 would require 250
iruckloads of construction materials. This reduction in truck
traffic would result in significant reductions in noise and odor
impacts to the surrounding community.
On-site disturbance of wetlands and habitat alteration or loss
would be less under Alternative 2. Alternative 1 would affect
1.8 acres of wetlands, while Alternative 2 would affect 0.5 acre
of wetlands. Both alternatives require access agreements for the
use of adjacent properties during design and remedial action
activities.
Implementability
The necessary technical equipment and skilled workers are
available to implement either alternative. Both alternatives
involve well-established, common construction methods. Numerous
hazardous waste sites have been remediated by stabilization and
containment methods similar to those developed for Alternative 1
and Alternative 2. Provisions would have to be made in the
Alternative 2 remedial design for the handling of large debris
and boulders during the solidification process.
Alternative 1 would require a wetlands mitigation plan, and
compliance with federal and state air emissions regulations. In
addition, Alternative 1 would require either compliance with
NJPDES regulations for discharge of stormwater runoff or
permission to discharge to the local sewer authority.
Alternative 2 would also require compliance with federal and
state air emissions regulations, and a mitigation plan for
wetlands lost during construction.
cost
*
The cost evaluation of each alternative includes consideration of
capital costs and annual O&M costs. The estimated capital cost
of Alternative 1 is $13.2 million, with an estimated O&M cost of
$189,000 per year. The estimated capital cost of Alternative 2,
the less expensive alternative, is $8.4 million, with an
estimated O&M cost of $93,000 per year. A detailed breakdown of
the O&M costs can be found in the FFS.
13
-------
Modifying criteria
State Acceptance
TLe State of New Jersey concurs with the selected remedy only if
institutional controls, which include but are not necessarily
limited to deed restrictions, are established for the site.
Community Acceptance
EPA solicited comments from the community regarding the two
remedial alternatives, and on whether to amend the 1986 ROD
remedy. There were no comments -from the community at the public
meeting concerning the proposed remedy change. In addition, no
written comments were received during the public comment period.
The attached responsiveness summary describes the community
relations activities for this ROD Amendment.
SELECTED REMEDY
After evaluating the two alternatives, EPA has selected
Alternative 2 as the remedy for the site because it best
satisfies the requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA, and the
NCP's nine evaluation criteria for remedial alternatives. The
remedy was based on continued use of the property for commercial
or industrial purposes.
The major components of the remedy are as follows:
excavation and off-site disposal of 1650 cubic yards of
California List waste materials;
excavation and off-site treatment and disposal of all soils
with concentrations of VOCs over 100 mg/kg;
in-situ stabilization of 29,500 cubic yards and 5,200 cubic
yards of contaminated soil in the central lagoon area and
north lagoon area respectively, to form a low permeability
concrete solidified mass; and
• placement of two feet of clean soil over the solidified mass
followed by revegetation of the areas to limit contact with
the treated materials and erosion of the soil cover.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
As previously noted, Section 121 of CERCLA mandates that a
remedial action must be protective of human health and the
environment, cost effective, and utilize permanent solutions and
14
-------
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Section
121(b)(1) also establishes a preference for remedial actions
which employ treatment to permanently and significantly reduce
the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants at a site. Section 121 of CERCLA
further specifies that a remedial action must attain a degree of
cleanup that satisfies ARARs under federal and state laws, unless
a waiver can be justified.
For the reasons discussed below, EPA has determined that the
selected remedy fcr the Caldwell Trucking Company site meets the
requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA.
The selected remedy will adequately control potential exposure of
human or ecological receptors to treated waste materials. In
addition, because of concerns that organic constituents could
adversely affect the permanence of the stabilized mass, sampling
will be performed during the remedial design to verify that the
selected reagent mix used for stabilization will provide a
solidified mass with long-term durability.
The selected remedy will practically eliminate migration of
contaminants to the ground water underlying the Caldwell Trucking
site by excavation and off-site disposal of the contaminated
soils with concentrations of VOCs over 100 mg/kg, in addition to
the excavation and off-site disposal of the California List
wastes. Lead and the remaining low levels of VOCs in the soil
will be stabilized and encapsulated in a solidified mass with a
maximum permeability of 1 x 10"5 cm/sec, thus providing long-term
protection to human health and the environment.
Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy will be designed to meet the soil cleanup
criteria, as well as all action-specific and location-specific
ARARs discussed under the "Summary of Comparative Analysis of
Alternatives", above.
Cost. Effectiveness
The cost effectiveness of an alternative is determined by
weighing the cost against the alternative's ability to achieve
ARARs and remedial action objectives. The selected remedy is the
most cost-effective remedy. The capital costs of the selected
remedy are almost $5 million less than Alternative 1, and the
yearly O&M costs are one half of those for Alternative 1.
15
-------
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to the Maxim"™ gyfcgnt Practicable
The selected remedy x'tilizes permanent solutions and treatment
technologies to tx.e uiaximum extent practicable and provides the
best balance of -^rade-offs with respect to the nine evaluation
criteria previously discussed.
The selected remedy will reduce the toxicity and volume of the
contaminated soil at the site by the off-site treatment and
disposal of California List wastes, and the off-site treatment
and disposal of soils with VOCs greater than 100 mg/kg. This
will significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume of
the contaminants at the site, and offers a permanent solution to
the risks posed by these wastes.
In addition, the selected remedy will immobilize the hazardous
constituents remaining in the soil through chemical
stabilization. A secondary reduction in mobility will be
obtained by encapsulation of the treated wastes in a subsurface
concrete solidified mass. As a result, the mobility of the
remaining contaminants at the site will be significantly reduced.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy will also meet the statutory preference for
remedies that employ treatment as a principal element. The
California List waste materials will be incinerated in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 268, and the remaining site soils will be
stabilized in situ, thereby raducing the risk to human health.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for the Caldwell Trucking Company site was
released for public comment on October 25, 1994. The Proposed
Plan identified Alternative 2 as the preferred remedy for the
site. No written or verbal comments were received concerning the
proposed remedy change. As a result, EPA has determined that no
significant changes to the remedy, as it was originally defined
in the Proposed Plan, are necessary.
16
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
FOR THE
CALDWELL TRUCKING COMPANY SITE
FAIRFIELD, NEW JERSEY
I. INTRODUCTION
This Responsiveness Summary provides a summary of the public
meeting concerning a modification in the remedy for the
contaminated soils at the Caldwell Trucking Company Superfund
site. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has amended the remedy for the contaminated soils at the site,
after taking into consideration that there were no comments from
the public in regard to the remedy change.
EPA held a public comment period from October 25, 1994 through
November 25, 1994 to provide interested parties with the
opportunity to comment on the focused feasibility study (FFS)
report and the Proposed Plan. In addition, EPA held a public
meeting to discuss the two remedial alternatives described in the
FFS report and to present EPA's preferred remedial alternative
for cleaning up the contaminated soil at the site. The meeting
was held at the Fairfield Town Hall, located at 230 Fairfield
Road, Fairfield, New Jersey, on November 9, 1994, at 7:00 pm.
At the public meeting, there were no comments on the proposed
remedy change. The only question regarded the California List
wastes, and when they had been excavated. No written comments
were received during the public comment period.
II. ORAL COMMENT RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC MEETING
Comment: A member of the Two Bridges Sewer Authority wanted to
know the time period for the excavation of the California List
wastes, and if it took place during this past summer.
Response: The cleanup started in mid-August and concluded Labor
Day week.
III. LIST OF APPENDICES
The following appendices document the public participation in the
remedy selection process for the site.
Appendix A contains the Proposed Plan that was distributed
to the public for review and comment;
Appendix B contains the public notice which appeared in the
Caldwell Progress;
Appendix C contains the public meeting transcript;
Appendix D contains the index to the administrative record
developed for the site.
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
Superfund Proposed Plan
Caldwell Trucking Company Site
Fairfield Township
Essex County
New Jersey
EPA
Region 2
October 1994
PURPOSE OF PROPOSED PLAN
This Proposed Plan describes remedial alternatives being
considered to amend the 1986 Record of Decision (1986
ROD) for the Caldwell Trucking Superfund site, Fairfield
Township, New Jersey. In addition, this Proposed Plan
identifies the preferred remedial alternative, along with the
rationale for this preference.
This Proposed Plan was developed by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA), as lead agency, with
support from the New Jersey Department of Environmen-
tal Protection (NJDEP). EPA is issuing this Proposed
Plan as part of its public participation responsibilities
under Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980, as amended, and Section 300.430(0 of the National
Contingency Plan (NCP).
During the design of the remedy, EPA received new
information about the site. As a result, EPA issued an
Explanation of Significant Differences
-------
Superfund Proposed Plan
Caldwell Trucking Company Site
COMMUNITY ROLE IN SELECTION PROCESS
EPA and NJDEP rely on public input to ensure that the
concerns of the community are considered in selecting an
effective remedy for each Superfund site. To this end, the
FFS report, Proposed Plan, and supporting documentation
have been made available to the public for a public com-
ment period which begins on October 25, 1994 and con-
cludes on November 25, 1994.
Copies of the FFS report, Proposed Plan, and sup-
porting documentation are available at the following
repositories:
Town Clerk's Office
Township of Fair-field
230 Fairfield Road
Fairfield, New Jersey 07004
(201) 882-2700
and
Superfund Records Center
EPA Region H
26 Federal Plaza, Room 2900
New York, New York 10278
(212) 264-8770
A public meeting will be held during the public comment
period at the Fairfield Town Hall located at 230 Fairfield
Road, Fairfield Township, New Jersey, on November 9,
1994, at 7:00 pm to present the conclusions of the FFS, to
elaborate further on the reasons for recommending the
preferred remedial alternative, and to receive public com-
ments.
Comments received at the public meeting, as well as
written comments, will be documented in the Responsive-
ness Summary Section of the ROD Amendment, which
formalizes the selection of the remedy.
All written comments should be addressed to:
Richard J. Robinson, Project Manager
Central New Jersey Superfund Section I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza, Room 711
New York, NY 10278
SITS BACKGROUND
Caldwell Trucking Company (Caldwell) was a sewage
hauling firm located at 222 Passaic Avenue in Fairfield
Township, New Jersey. The site consists of Lot 17 of
Block 2201 and Lots 7, 18 and 20 of Block 2302 on the
Fairfield Township tax map, and also those areas affected
by the plume of contaminated ground water. The West
Essex Regional High School is located approximately 200
feet to the east Approximately 45 small businesses are
situated within one mile 01 "he site, and the nearest major
residential area is approximately 1000 feet to the north-
east
Caldwell disposed of residential and commercial septic
waste, as well as industrial waste, in unlined lagoons on
the site from the early 1950's until about 1973. When the
lagoons were full, Caldwell backfilled them and dug a new
series of lagoons, sometimes over pre-existing lagoons.
1986 Remedia1 Investigation and Feasibility Study
In June 1986, EPA completed a Remedial Investigation
and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the site. The RI/FS was
conducted to identify the types, quantities, and locations of
contaminants, and to develop ways of addressing the
contamination problems. The RI delineated the horizontal
and vertical extent of the contamination in the former
lagoons, and confirmed the presence of a downgradient
plume of contaminated ground water. Metals, primarily
lead, cadmium and mercury, VOCs, polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) were detected in on-site subsurface soils. Lead,
PCBs, and PAHs were also detected in on-site surface
soils. Lead is the primary metal of concern in both the
surface and subsurface soils. Ground water is contam-
inated with VOCs, including trichloroethylene and
1,1,1-trichloroethane.
A risk assessment was performed as part of the 1986
RI/FS. This information is available for review in the
Administrative Record for the 1986 ROD, at the
repositories listed above.
Based on the results of the RI/FS, site remediation was
divided into four remedial components. Remedies for the
first three components were selected in the 1986 ROD.
The fourth component, which deals with the contaminated
ground water, is being dealt with under a second ROD
that was signed in 1989. That component is not affected
by this proposed ROD amendment
EPA Region II - October 1994
Page 2
-------
Superfund Proposed Plan
Caldwetl Trucking Company Site
1986 ROD Remedy
EPA selected the following remedial actions in the 1986
ROD:
First Component
• Restoration of the water quality in Municipal Well
No. 7 to drinking water quality standards, through
a treatment process known as 'air-stripping*.
Second Component
• Provision of an alternative water supply for resi-
dents potentially affected by ground water contam-
ination associated with the site.
Third Component
• Excavation and treatment (by the addition of heat.)
of approximately 28,000 cubic yards of contaminat-
ed soils and waste materials; and
. Placement of the treated waste in a secure landfill
to be constructed on-site in accordance with the
requirements of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
The Township of Fairfield subsequently chose not to
provide treatment for Municipal Well No. 7, but rather
decided to use the Passaic Valley Water Commission as an
alternative potable water supply for the entire community.
EPA issued an ESD in May 1991, to explain the deletion
of the Municipal Well No. 7 component of the remedy.
In the summer of 1989, EPA hooked up 55 residential
properties nnt^ nine commercial ogfaMighmont-n to the
municipal water system. This fulfilled the second remedial
component of the 1986 ROD.,.,
Remedial Design for Contaminated Soils and Waste
Materials
In 1987, EPA initiated a remedial design for the contami-
nated soils and waste materials component of the
1986 ROD. Initial design activities focused on further
characterization of the soils and waste materials at the site,
and restoration of water quality in Municipal Well No. 7.
In the summer of 1990, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
conducted field investigations designed to measure air
emissions from on-site activities during test pit excava-
tions, and to collect geotechnical data involving the subsur-
face soils.
At the time of the RI/FS, EPA believed that sludge waste
at the site was limited to the existing surface lagoon, and
that the waste remaining in this lagoon would be best
treated by the same processes intended to be used for soil
treatment However, the results of the remedial design
investigations indicated that the volume of sludge at the
site was greater than originally estimated. In addition,
new information about the levels and combinations of
contaminants in the sludges, and also in some site soils,
indicated that additional treatment before disposal would
be required.
The remedial design investigations also provided additional
information about the buried sludge lagoons. Some
sludges have concentrations of lead over 100,000 tog/kg;
others contain halogenated organic compounds (HOCs),
such as trichloroethylene or perchloroethylene, at total
concentrations greater than 1000 nog/kg, as well as high
concentrations of lead. Under RCRA regulations,
40 C.F.R. § 268.32, any waste with this combination of
contaminants is classified as a California List waste, and
cannot be land disposed without treatment 40 C.F.R.
Part 268 prescribes incineration as the treatment method
for all California List wastes.
In addition, the results of testing during the remedial
design indicated that some of the other soil and waste
materials also had high lead levels; these were classified as
RCRA characteristic hazardous wastes because of their
tcoticity. As RCRA hazardous wastes, they must meet
specific treatment standards before they can be placed in
a land disposal unit
1993 Explanation of Significant Differences
In February 1993, as a result of the additional information
gathered in the remedial design, EPA modified the remedy
selected in the 1986 ROD for treatment and disposal of the
contaminated soils and other waste materials, as follows:
• Excavation (as described in the 1986 ROD) of
35,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils and other
waste materials (an increase of 7,000 cubic yards
compared to the volume estimated in the 1986
ROD);
EPA Region II - October 1994
Page 3
-------
Superfund Proposed Plan
Caldwell Trucking Company Site
Off-site disposal and treatment of approximately
1650 cubic yards of California List waste materials
(a new component that replaced the on-site ther-
mal treatment of high concentrations of VOC
contaminated soils);
Stabilization of the lead contaminated soils re-
maining on the site, prior to their placement in
the RCRA landfill (an additional component
needed to comply with RCRA land disposal restric-
tions);
Treatment that will reduce the VOCs in contami-
nated soils to acceptable levels (this will be accom-
plished by off-site treatment and disposal of the
high VOC content California List wastes, and by
the reduction and treatment of the remaining
VOCs in the soils during the stabilization process,
rather than in a separate low temperature thermal
treatment system as described in the 1986 ROD);
and
Placement of the treated soils in a secure on-site
landfill, as described in the 1986 ROD. This
landfill will be constructed in accordance with
RCRA and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
requirements.
The off-site treatment and disposal of California List waste
materials with high levels of VOCs, and stabilization of the
lead contaminated soils that would also reduce the VOCs
remaining in the soils, were modifications of the remedy
selected in the 1986 ROD. These VOC treatment methods
replaced the low temperature thermal.treatment method
described in the ROD.
In September 1994, the PRPs, under EPA oversight,
completed the excavation and off-site treatment and
disposal of the California Lis£ waste materials, and re-
moved the underground storage tanks.
ENFORCEMENT HISTORY
In April 1993, EPA issued a unilateral Administrative
Order (UAO), Index No. II-CERCLA-93-0102, to 11
potentially responsible parties to implement the existing
remedy. In June 1993, EPA issued a second UAO, In-
dex No. n-CERCLA-93-0104, to 15 PRPs to conduct a pre-
design ground water investigation. Nine PRPs agreed to
comply with both UAOs, and formed the Caldwell Truck-
ing Company Site Trust (the Trust). On March 30,1994,
EPA, the NJDEP and the U.S. Department of Interior
lodged a consent agreement with the U.S. District Court,
under which the Trust will perform the remedial work to
contain the contaminated ground water plume, in addition
to the site work which tuc./ are undertaking under both
UAOs.
1993 FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY
In October 1993, the Trust conducted bei_.-Vscale studies
to evaluate the effectiveness of stabilization on site-specific
soil and contaminants. In January 1994, the Trust
presented EPA and NJDEP with the results of the bench-
scale studies. These studies indicated that, after the
California List waste materials and other soils with high
concentrations of VOC& were treated and disposed of off-
site, stabilization of the remaining wastes in place might be
as effective in protecting human u^alth and the envi-
ronment as the existing remedy, ^his would be accom-
plished by forming a solid and durable concrete mass (in-
situ stabilization/solidification), with a minimum perme-
ability of 1 X 10"* centimeters/second.
As a result, on February 3, 1994, the Trust formally
requested permission to prepare an FFS to evaluate this
in-situ stabilization/solidification as an alternative remedy
for the source of contamination. The purpose of the FFS
was to demonstrate that an in-situ stabiliza-
tion/solidification technology would be applicable to the
Caldwell Trucking site, and to evaluate whether this
technology would be protective of human health and the
environment.
Two remedial alternatives were compared in the FFS. The
first alternative consists of the remedy presented in the
1986 ROD, as modified by the 1993 ESD; this alternative
includes stabilization of the non-California List waste
material nnf> placement in an on-site landfiTl The second
alternative consists of in-situ stabilization/solidification of
the non-California List waste material and installation of
a soil cover.
The information presented regarding Alternative 1,
stabilization and lanHfillingl is based on an EPA design for
this remedy that was prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and modified by the Trust pursuant to their
UAO. The information presented regarding the stabiliza-
tion/solidification portion of each of these alternatives is
based upon information gathered from current industry
literature, and from bench-scale testing conducted in
October 1993 utilizing soils from the Caldwell Trucking
EPA Region II • October 1994
Page 4
-------
Superfund Proposed Plan
Caldwell Trucking Company Site
site. The Trust presented additional information relative
to the in-situ stabilization/solidification alternative based
on the use of this technology at another Superfund site.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF ACTION
This Proposed Plan describes a remedial alternative being
considered to amend the existing remedy at the Caldwell
Trucking site. This alternative remedy and the existing
remedy are described in more detail in the FFS.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives are specific goals to protect
human health and the environment. For the Caldwell
Trucking site, they are:
• Mitigate any unacceptable risks to human and
ecological receptors from dermal contact with
and/or incidental ingestion of soil contaminants.
• Mitigate any unacceptable risks to human or
ecological receptors from inhalation of contami-
nants released from soil on the site to the air.
• Inhibit the leaching of contaminants from soil on
the site and their possible migration to ground
water.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA requires that each selected site remedy be
protective of human health and the environment, be cost
effective, comply with other laws, and utilize permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies and
resource recovery alternatives to the maximum extent
practicable. In addition, CEROLA includes a preference for
the use of treatment as a principal element for the reduc-
tion of toxicity, mobility or volume of the hazardous
substances.
The FFS report evaluates two remedial alternatives for ad-
dressing the contamination associated with the Caldwell
Trucking site.
These alternatives are:
Alternative 1: Stabilization/Landfill
Capital Cost $13,194,000
Operation and Maintenance (O & M) Cost $189,000
Present Worth Cost $15,539,000
Construction Time: 1.5 years
Alternative 1 ic the «"gting remedy; it includes:
• Excavation, off-site treatment and disposal of
approximately 1650 cubic yards of California List
waste materials;
• Excavation of approximately 35,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soils and other waste materials; and
• Stabilization of about 29,500 cubic yards of non-
California List waste material in the central lagoon
area and 5,200 cubic yards of contaminated soil in
the north lagoon area, which wfll immobilize the
heavy metals and reduce the remaining VOCs in
contaminated soils to an acceptable level prior to
placement of the treated wastes in an on-site
RCRA/TSCA landfill.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants
remaining on the site, CERCLA requires that the site be
reviewed every five years. If justified by the review,
additional remedial actions may be implemented to remove
or treat the wastes.
Alternative 2: Stabilization/Solidification
Capital Cost $8,384,000
O&MCost $93,000
Present Worth Cost $9,538,000
Construction Time: 0.75 yean
Alternative 2 includes:
• Excavation, off-site treatment and disposal of
approximately 1650 cubic yards of California List
waste materials;
• Excavation, and off-site treatment and disposal of
contaminated soils with concentrations of VOCs
greater than 100 mg/kg;
EPA Region II - October 1994
Page 5
-------
Superfund Proposed Plan
CaJdwell Trucking Company Site
In-situ stabilization/solidification of about 29,500
cubic yards and 5^200 cubic yards in the central
lagoon area and north lagoon area respectively,
forming a solid and durable low permeability
concrete mass, referred to as the solidified mass";
and
Placement of two feet of dean soil over the soli-
dified mass areas to prevent direct contact with
the solidified
Because this alternative would result in contaminants
remaining on the site, CERCLA requires that the site be
reviewed every five years. If justified by the review,
additional remedial actions may be implemented to remove
or treat the wastes.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives,
each alternative is assessed against nine evaluation criteria,
which are described below.
o Overall protection of human he^th and the envi-
ronment addresses whether or not a remedy
provides adequate protection and describes how
risks posed through each pathway are eliminated,
reduced, or controlled through treatment, engi-
neering controls, or institutional controls.
o Compliance with applicable or relevant and appro-
priate requirements (ARARs) addresses whether
or not a remedy will meet all of the applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements of federal
and state environmental statutes and require-
ments, or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
o Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to
the ability of a remedjUo maintain reliable protec-
tion of human health and the environment over
time, once cleanup goals have been met
o Reduction of toridtv. mobility, or volume through
treatment is the anticipated performance of the
treatment technologies that a remedy may employ.
o Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of
time needed to achieve protection, and any adverse
impacts on human health and the environment
that may be posed during the construction and im-
plementation period until cleanup goals are
achieved.
Implementabilitv is the technical and administra-
tive feasibility of a remedy, including the avail-
ability of materials and services needed to imple-
ment a particular option.
Cost includes estimated capital and operat'^n and
maintenance costs, and net present worth cosu:
State acceptance indicates whether, based on its
review of the FFS report and Proposed Plan, the
state concurs, opposes, or has no comment on the
preferred alternative at the present time.
Community acceptance refers to the reaction of
the community and will be assessed in the amend-
ed ROD following a review of the public comments
received on the FFS report and the Prepaid Plan.
A comparative analysis of these alternatives based upon
the evaluation criteria noted above follows.
o Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment
Alternative 1 provides protection of human health and the
environment through removal and off-site disposal of the
California List waste materials, a major source of the
ground water contamination. In addition, the remaining
contaminated materials in the central lagoon area and the
contaminated soils in the north lagoon area would be
excavated and stabilized prior to placement in a
RCRA/TSCA landfill to be constructed on the site. The
landfill would encapsulate or isolate the stabilized material
to prevent infiltration of rain, surface water runoff, and
ground water. The landfill cap would prevent exposure
through direct contact with the treated material.
As in Alternative 1, Alternative 2 provides protection of
human health and the environment through removal and
off-site disposal of the California List waste materials, a
major source of the ground water contamination. Howev-
er, Alternative 2 provides additional protection through the
excavation and off-site disposal of all soils with concentra-
tions of VOCs over 100 mg/kg, and stabilization in place of
the remaining contamination in the central lagoon area
and in the north lagoon area forming a low permeability
solidified mass. This stabilization creates a solid and dura-
ble mass which would practically eliminate the flow of
EPA Region II • October 1994
Page 6
-------
Superfund Proposed Plan
Caldwell n"icking Company Site
water through the contaminated soil. Two feet of clean
soil would be added to cover the solidified mass. This will
allow revegetation of the area, reduce the potential for
direct contact with the solidified mass, and prevent
erosion.
o Compliance with ARARs
Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) are those federal and State environmental and
public health regulations that apply to remedial activities
at the site. There are three types of ARARs: chemical-
specific, which are health- or risk-based concentration
limits; location-specific, which are based on the geographic-
al location of the site and its surroundings; and action-
specific, which are controls on particular types of remedial
activities.
There are no federal or State chemical-specific cleanup
standards promulgated for the cleanup of the contaminated
surface and subsurface soils at the Caldwell Trucking site.
However, during the 1986 ROD remedial design, EPA and
NJDEP agreed upon objectives for the cleanup of the
contaminated soil. Both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2
will achieve these cleanup objectives.
Both alternatives are expected to attain the following
action-specific ARARs: the Clean Air Act National Emis-
sions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR
Part 61), New Jersey Air Permit Requirements (NJAC
7:27-8), New Jersey Control and Prohibition of Air Pollu-
tion by Toxic Substances (NJAC 7:27-17), and New Jersey
Regulations for Volatile Organic Substances
(NJAC 7:27-16).
Alternative 1 requires a waiver of the NJDEP Hazardous
Waste Facility Siting Criteria (NJAC 7:26-10.8e-7) action-
specific ARAR, since the landfill would not be located at a
sufficient distance from a neighboring property to comply
with the siting criteria. As part of the remedial design for
the existing remedy, EPA and NJDEP agreed to waive this
ARAR. Alternative 2 would not trigger these siting
criteria; therefore, no waivers are necessary.
Alternative 1 would meet RCRA land disposal restrictions
(LDRs) for the placement of the stabilized soil into an on-
site landfill. Stabilization would meet the treatment
requirements that specify that a RCRA hazardous waste
must be treated prior to placement at a disposal facility.
Alternative 2 would not invoke LDRs because these
activity-based limitations do not apply when the waste
material is treated in place. Nonetheless, the stabilize-
tion/solidification component of Alternative 2 is the same
treatment process required to meet RCRA LDRs under
Alternative 1.
Both alternatives would comply with the action-specific
requirements of RCRA, U.S. Department of Transportation
regulations, and the New Jersey Solid and Hazardous
Waste Regulations regarding the handling and shipment
of California List waste* and other contaminated soils
which would be sent off-site for treatment and disposal. In
addition, both alternatives would meet the RCRA LDR
treatment standards for the proper off-site treatment and
disposal of the California List wastes and the soils contami-
nated with high levels of VOCs.
Both alternatives are expected to meet the requirements of
the Executive Order on Wetlands Protection (EO 11980),
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and Section 7:7A of
the New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act
o Long-Tann Effectiveness and Permanence
Both alternatives would reduce the magnitude of residual
risk through the off-site treatment and disposal of the
California List wastes and soils contaminated with high
amounts of VOCs, and stabilization of the remaining
contaminated soils. The containment of stabilized soils in
an on-site hazardous waste landfill (Alternative 1) or via
in-situ stabilization/solidification (Alternative 2) would
provide comparable reductions in the baseline risk esti-
mates developed as part of the 1986 RI/FS.
As required by CERCLA, both Alternatives would require
a five-year review to evaluate site conditions. If justified
by the review, additional remedial actions may be imple-
mented to remove or treat the wastes.
The isolation of the treated waste materials in a capped
hazardous waste landfill (Alternative 1) or a solidified mass
with a two foot clean soil cover (Alternative 2) would
adequately control potential exposure of human or ecologi-
cal receptors to treated waste materials. Because of con-
cerns that organic constituents could impact the perma-
nence of Alternative 2, sampling would be performed
during the remedial design to verify that the selected
reagent mix used for stabilization would create a solidified
mass with long-term durability.
Both alternatives would reduce leachate generation and
migration to ground water underlying the Caldwell
Trucking site. Alternative 1 would rely on stabilization to
immobilize the contaminants, followed by landfilling of the
EPA Region II - October 1994
Page 7
-------
Superfund Proposed Plan
Caldwell Trucking Company Site
treated soil to isolate these materials from water that
might infiltrate through the cap material. Alternative 2
would encapsulate treated materials in a low permeability
solidified tr-_>s located above the water table. Leachate
would not be generated from the solidified mass, and
infiltration of rain and surface water runoff through the
mass would be practically eliminated because of its low
permeability.
o Reduction in Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume
The alternatives would each achieve essentially equivalent
reductions in tozicity, mobility or volume of the soils to be
treated. Both alternatives would reduce the tozicity,
mobility and volume of the California List waste through
the off-site incineration of this waste. Neither alternative
would directly affect the intrinsic tozicity or volume of the
soil constituents. Tbe mobility of these constituents would
be initially reduced Bunder both alternatives by chemical
stabilization. Secondary reduction in mobility would be
obtained either by containment in a hazardous waste
landfill (Alternative 1) or encapsulation in a subsurface
concrete solidified mass (Alternative 2). Both alternatives
would be expected to immobilize the hazardous constitu-
ents remaining in the soil.
o Short-Term Effectiveness
For either alternative, an air monitoring program and
engineering controls will be used to control any airborne
dust and emissions from the site. Both alternatives would
require the implementation of a health and safety plan to
minimize any risks to on-site workers, employees in nearby
industrial and commercial facilities, and other members of
the public. Alternative 2 would geneiate somewhat less
VOCs, odor and dust emissions than Alternative 1, by
eliminating soil excavation, aboveground handling and
treatment, and overland transport of treated residual
materials to an on-site landfill. Construction time would
also be reduced under Alternative 2, because the action
may be completed in nine months, as compared to
18 months for Alternative 1.
Under Alternative 1, construction of an on-site hazardous
waste landfill and backfilling of the central lagoon area
excavation would require approximately 5,000 trucks
carrying 100,000 cubic yards of construction materials.
Alternative 2 would require 250 truckloads of construction
materials. This reduction in truck traffic would result in
significant reductions in noise and odor impacts to the
surrounding community.
On-site disturbance of wetlands and habitat alteration or
loss would be less under Alternative 2. Alternative 1
would affect 1.8 acres of wetlands, while Alternative 2
would affect 0.5 acre of wetlands. Both alternatives
require access agreements for the use of adjacent proper-
ties during design and remedial action activities.
o Implementabilitv
The necessary technical equipment and skilled workers are
available to implement either alternative. Both alterna-
tives involve well-established, common construction
methods. Numerous hazardous waste sites have been
remediated by stabilization and containment methods
similar to those developed for Alternative 1 and Alter-
native 2. Provisions would have to be made in the Alter-
native 2 remedial design for the handling of large debris
and boulders during the solidification process.
Alternative 1 would require a wetlands mitigation plan,
and compliance with federal and state air emissions regulr-
tions. In addition, Alternative 1 would require either
compliance with NJPDES regulations for discharge of
stormwater runoff or permission to discharge to the local
sewer authority. Alternative 2 would also require compli-
ance with federal and state air emissions regulations, and
a mitigation plan for wetlands lost during construction.
o Cost
The cost evaluation of each alternative includes consider-
ation of capital costs and annual O&M costs. The estimat-
ed capital cost of Alternative 1 is $13.2 million, and the
estimated O&M cost is $189,000 per year. The estimated
capital cost of Alternative 2 is $8.4 million and the estimat-
ed O&M cost is $93,000 per year.
o State Acceptance
The State of New Jersey concurs with the proposal to
amend the 1986 ROD, and supports the preferred remedial
alternative.
o Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the preferred alternative will be
assessed in the ROD following review of the public com-
ments received on the FFS report and the Proposed Plan.
EPA Region II • October 1994
Page 8
-------
Superfund Proposed Plan
Caldwell Trucking Company Site
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Based upon an evaluation of the various alternatives, EPA
and NJDEP recommend Alternative 2, in-situ stabiliza-
tion/solidification, as the preferred alternative for the site
remedy.
Alternative 2 includes excavation and off-site disposal of
1650 cubic yards of California Lost waste materials,
excavation and off-site treatment and disposal of all soils
with concentrations of VOCs over 100 mg/kg, and in-situ
stabilization of 29,500 cubic yards and 5,200 cubic yards in
the central lagoon area and north lagoon area respectively,
forming a low permeability concrete solidified mass. Two
feet of clean soil will be placed over the solidified mass to
allow for revegetation of the area.
The preferred alternative would adequately control
potential exposure of human or ecological receptors to
treated waste materials. In addition, because of concerns
that organic constituents could adversely affect the perma-
nence of the stabilized mass, sampling would be performed
during the remedial design to verify that the selected
reagent mix used for stabilization would provide a soli-
dified magg with long-term durability.
The preferred alternative would practically eliminate
migration of contaminants to the ground water underlying
the Caldwell Trucking site by excavation and off-site
disposal of the contaminated soils with concentrations of
VOCs over 100 mg/kg, in addition to the excavation and
off-site disposal of the California List wastes. Lead and the
regaining low levels of VOCs in the soil wfll be stabilized
and encapsulated in a solidified mass that will have a mini-
mum permeability of 1 x 10"8 centimeters per second, thus
providing long-term protection to human health and the
environment.
The preferred alternative would have fewer short-term
impacts than Alternative 1 because it eliminates soil
excavation, aboveground handling and treatment, and
overland transport of treated waste materials to an on-site
landfill The preferred alternative could be completed in
nine months as compared to 18 months for Alternative 1.
There would be less truck traffic under the preferred
alternative. About 5,000 truckloads (or 10,000 truck trips)
would be required for Alternative 1, as compared to 250
truckloads (or 500 truck trips) for the preferred alterna-
tive. This reduction in truck traffic would result in signifi-
cant reductions in noise and odor impacts on the sur-
rounding community.
The preferred remedy is the most cost-effective remedy.
The capital costs of the preferred remedy are almost
$5 million less than Alternative 1, and the yearly, O&M
costs are one half of those for Alternative 1.
Future land use at the site is also an important consider-
ation. Under Alternative 1, a four acre hazardous waste
landfill would be constructed in the north lagoon area.
This landfill would occupy the entire north lagoon area,
and make it unavailable for other land use. The preferred
remedy may allow some development in ths north lagoon
area, since the solidified mass would occupy only a small
portion of this area. I .and use restrictions would be
required to protect the integrity of the solidified mass in
both the central lagoon area and north lagoon area.
The preferred alternative would provide the best balance
of trade-offs among alternatives with respect to the
evaluating criteria. EPA and NJDEP believe that the
preferred alternative will be protective of human health
and the environment, will comply with ARARs, will be cost
effective, and will utilize permanent solutions and alterna-
tive treatment technologies or resource recovery technolo-
gies to the maximum extent practicable. The remedy also
will meet the statutory preference for the use of treatment
as a principal element
EPA Region II - October 1994
Page 9
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
ANNOUNCES PROPOSAL TO AMEND
MEMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE FOR THE
CAlAWELLTPtUCXiNO COMPANY
SUPdVUND 8TO
FAMHELD TOWNSHIP. NEW JERSEY
The Urttea Stain Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has issued • Proposed Plan
which explains an attemsBve to the remedy*
selected in the 1986 Record of Decision
(ROD) for the remaining sou contamination at
the Caldwall Trucking Company Superfund
Site (the SM).
The 1986 ROD provided that the 35.000
cubic yards of remaining contaminated soil at
the Site be stabilized and placed in a naz-
ardouswaata landfill to be constructed on site
(Alternative 1).
EPA is recommending that the remedy be
changed to excavation, off-site treatment and
disposal of contaminated sorts with concen-
trations of volatile organic compounds
greater than 100 parts par miHon: \rnitu sta-
BiHzaflon/tondtfication of about 35.000 cubic
yards of contaminated sou to form a solid.
durable, tow permeabitty concrete mass, and
placement of two feet of clean sod over the
lelUiia mass (Atemaflve 2).
Before selecting a final remedy. EPA will
consider ail written and oral comments on
this preferred alternative. Al comments must
be postmarked on or before November 25.
1994. The final decision document wtTMnclude
a summary of public comments and EPA
EPA w* hold an informational public meet-
ing on Wednesday. November 9. 1994. at
7:00 p.m.. at me Fairfield Town Hall at 230
FarfteW Road to discuss the proposed after-
naove »«he 1986 ROO.
The preferred alternative Is outlined and
Feasibility Study (FFS) report. Proposed Plan.
and other site leialed documents can be con-
sutted at the information repositories Haled
before during regular business hours:
Township of Fsirftetd
Town Clertfs Office
230 Fsrteio Road
FartettNJ 07004
(201)883-2700
EPA Region 2
26 Federal Plaza. Rm. 2900
New York. NY 10278
(212)264^770
9O3a.m.to5:OOpJTV
Written comments on the preferred arterna-
Ove. should be sent to:
Richard Robinson, Protect Manager. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 26 Federal
Plaza. Room 71 1 . New York. New York 10278.
THE PROGRESS
Nov. 3. 1994
146.92
6 Brookjide Avenue. Caldwcll. N.J. 07006
State of New Jersey.
Countv of Essex.
Carroll
of full age.
being duly sworn according to law. on .. "°" . oath, saith that is'he is
a clerk in the office of -THE PROGRESS" and that a notice, of which the
annexed is a true copy, was published on the r'.r .. day of
November A.D.. is...0^ . . in said'THE
PROGRESS," a public newspaper printed and published at Caldwell. in this
State, in the English language, and continued therein for weeks
successively thereafter, at least once in every week, the last publication being
on the ~r~ day of '.•.P.Y?|T!PSr . 19 ,
making 9".® insertions in all.
Sworn and subscribed this
NOYeraber.:.l?.94
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CALDWELL TRUCKING COMPANY SITE
FAIRFIELD MUNICIPAL BUILDING
IN THE MATTER OF:
CALDWELL TRUCKING COMPANY
TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS
November 9, 1994
7:15 p.m.
Fairfield, New Jersey
BEFORE:
John P. McBurney, Senior Project Director
Andrew S. Johnson, P.E., Vice President
Richard J. Robsinson, Remedial Project Manager
LISA ARGENTIERI
SHORTHAND REPORTER
BRODY & GEISER
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
77 Hamilton Avenue
Fords, New Jersey 08863
(908) 738-8555
JOB #411094
BRODY & GEISER (908) 738-8555 or (212) 732-0644
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
APPEARANCES:
PITNEY, HARDIN, KIPP & SZUCH, ESQS
BY: PETER J. HERZBERG, ESQ.
ATTORNEY FOR CALDWELL TRUCKING
STEVEN KATZ, ESQ.
ATTORNEY FOR THE EPA
BRODY & GEISER (908) 738-8555 or (212) 732-0644
-------
3
1 MR. ROBINSON: Good evening. My name
2 is Rick Robinson. I'm the project manager
3 kl-.h EPA, with the Caldwell Truckirj cite.
4 Tonight there are two things we'd like to
5 talk to you about. The first thing I'd
6 like to ta^k to you about is removal of the
7 most hazardous wastes at the site which was
8 completed in September and the second is
9 the post change and a remedy for the
10 remaining wastes at the Caldwell Trucking
11 Site. We think this new remedy has merits.
12 First, I'd like to remind everybody
13 to sign in, those of you who are here
14 tonight, if you're not on our mailing
15 list. I would like to go over tonight the
16 1994 construction activities which were
17 presented by de maximis, Jack McBurney and
18 . John Alonzo. They're the group hired by
19 the Environmental Protection Agency, the
20 EPA's who are.doing work at the site and
21 their contractor they've hired, the
22 engineering contractor is Blasland, Bouck &
23 Lee, Andy Johnson and Mike McNally. One
24 other thing, from the State of New Jersey,
25 Riche Outlaw and Trish Conti from EPA and
•
BRODY & GEtSER (908) 738-8555 (212) 732-0644
-------
4
1 also Charlie Tenerella, section chief.
2 After the talk about the
3 construction activities we.will then go
4 back and talk about the repositories'
5 overview of the remedy change followed by
6 focused feasibility study results which are
7 represented by Blasland, Bouck & Lee and
8 then I will evaluate and go over the
9 evaluation criteria for change remedy and
10 then we'll open it up to questions and
11 answers. Now I'd like to turn it over to
12 Jack, who will go over the results of the
13 1994 fieldwork.
14 MR. MCBURNEY: Thank you, Rick. We
15 use lots of acronyms in Superfund. The
16 first thing I'll acquaint you with tonight
17 is the one called OU1 which is an operable
18 unit. One, this project is divided into
19 pieces. These pieces of the project we're
20 talking to you about tonight deals with the
21 handling of on-site contaminated soils.
22 Phase one activities we completed this
23 summer. We excavated and removed for
24 off-site disposal the most highly
25 contaminated wastes and soils that existed
BRODY & GEISBR (9080 738-8555 (212) 732-0644
-------
5
1 on the Fairfield or the Caldwell Trucking
2 property. Those materials were either
3 incinerator or l^dfilled in federally
4 approved facilities for disposal of
5 hazardous wastes.
6 Phase two is what ..3' re going to
7 talk to you about tonight. It is our
8 approach to dealing with the remaining
9 treatment for the soils that will remain
10 on-site after the California List waste
11 soils were removed this summer.
12 I just want to highlight for you
13 what was involved in the work that we've
14 done. To date we put in a fence to
15 . completely enclose the site and protect it
16 from the public. We removed four
17 underground storage tanks. We monitored
18 around controlled air emissions at the
19 site. We established a hotline for
20 _ concerned citizens for use of access to
21 call in the event that they were concerned
22 about emissions or odors or activities on
23 the site during removal of the California
24 List wastes. We really received no
25 concerned calls on the hotline. We
*
BRODY & GEISER (908) 738-8555' (212) 732-0644
-------
6
1 completed the work on schedule. We
2 completed the work without incident. In
3 toto we removed about 2500 tons of the
4 so-called California List waste soil
5 without incident.
6 There are some pictures over here
7 that show some of the work involved in
8 removing the tanks and then excavating and
9 removing the soils and that work is
10 finished. The worst part of the hazards
11 are behind us and we want to talk tonight
12 about the balance of the project to deal
13 with on-site soil.
14 Just to help you frame your
15 reference, we have a map of the site up
16 over there. This is kind of a blowup of
17 the site. This is supposed to be green,
18 but it looks dark to you now. That area of
19 the site is the part of the site known as
20 the central lagoon area. It was the place
21 where the California List wastes were
22 removed. There are four tank's which show
23 in outline. There are the four underground
24 storage tanks which have been removed,
25 destroyed and their tanks have been cut
BRODY & GEISER (908) 738-8555 (212) 732-0644
-------
7
1 apart. That work is finished now. That
2 kind of summarizes the work that.has been
3 done to'day.
4 MR. ROBINSON: I'd like now to go
5 over and explain some irregularity
6 overviews. The existing remedy for
7 contaminated soils at this site includes
8 excavation and treatment of the remaining
9 soils, contaminated soils and its placement
10 into on-site hazardous waste landfills to
11 be constructed and this aircraft photo of
12 the site in the north lagoon area.
13 In its 1986 record of decision EPA
14 selected a remedy at the time. It called
15 for treatment of the most contaminated
16 soils by low temperature unit. In 1993 EPA
17 modified the remedy because of the
18 additional information developed during
19 remedial design which indicated high levels
20 of volatile organic compounds. Wastes were
21 concentrated in certain areas of the site
22 and once these wastes were removed, thermal
23 treatment was no longer needed. That's
24 what was removed in some of the California
25 List wastes earlier this year. The PRP
BRODY & GEISER (908) 738-8555 (212) 732-0644
-------
8
1 Group formerly approached EPA and the State
2 of New Jersey about an alternate remedy
3 which would eliminate the need for the
4 landfill and would still be protective. As
5 a result, the EPA authorized the PRP Group
6 to prepare a focused feasibility study.
7 That is a detailed engineering report to
8 evaluate the remedies. In this case it's
9 called focused because it compares two
10 alternatives.
11 The purpose of this study is to
12 evaluate the alternative remedy, overall
13 protection to human health in the
14 environment. The BSD compares the focused
15 feasibility study and compares the existing
16 remedy with this alternate remedy, as
17 previously indicated by Jack, the first
18 phase of the soil cleanup at the site, the
19 excavation and the off-site. The
20 California List waste, which was the most
21 hazardous wastes at the site, was completed
22 earlier this year. This proposed remedy
23 deals with the remaining soil contamination
24 at the site. Proposed remedy change would
25 include excavation and off-site disposal of
BRODY & GEISER (908) 738-8555 (212) 732-0644
-------
9
l some hot spots, remaining hot spots of
2 volatile organic compounds contaminated
Y soils.
4 These are not the remaining soils.
5 These high concentrations of volatile
6 organics are not as hazardous as the
7 California List wastes that were removed
8 and sent off-site for treatment and
9 disposal.
10 The second component of the remedy
11 is stabilization of the remaining
12 contaminated soils in place forming a
13 solidified concrete mass and then placement
14 of two feet of clean soil over the
15 solidified mass. The final decision
16 guarding the selected remedy will be made
17 after the EPA has taken all the public
18 comments into consideration and tonight we
19 are letting the public comment on this
20 proposed remedy change.
21 To this end the PPS report, the
22 Proposed Plan and supporting documentation
23 have been made available to the public for
24 a public comment period which began on
25 October 25th and concludes on November 25th
BRODY & GEISER (908) 738-8555 (212) 732-0644
-------
10
1 and copies of the FFS report, Proposed Plan
2 and supporting documentation have been made
3 available at our repositories. Tiie two
4 repositories for this site are at the town
5 clerk's office here in Fairfield and the
6 Supe-tfund Records Center at 26 Federal
7 Plaza, New York. Their address and phone
8 numbers are listed in the Proposed Plan
9 which is at the front desk there. Comments
10 received at this public meeting, as well as
11 written comments, will be documented in the
12 response and summary section of the record
13 decision amended which formalizes the
14 selection of the remedy. All written
15 " comments should be addressed to me and my
16 address is in the Proposed Plan which is at
17 the front desk.
18 We'll now turn the presentation over
19 to Andy Johnson of Blasland, Bouck & Lee,
20 who will speak about the focused
21 feasibility study and present the two
22 alternatives being considered.
23 MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Rick. Just
24 to start with what the focused feasibility
25 study looked at was treating the remaining
•
BRODY & GEISER (908) 738-8555 (212) 732-0644
-------
11
1 soils on-site in what is called the central
2 lagoon area, as well as the remaining soils
3 on-^.i'_e in the north lagoon area
4 approximately 35,000 cubic yards of
5 material. As Rick said, during the design
6 of-: the landfill remedy the PRP Group came
7 to the EPA and requested the EPA to
8 consider an alternate remedy for the site.
9 The basis for the alternate remedy
10 that was proposed was really three
11 factors. Number one, that the site
12 contaminants which are the volatile organic
13 compounds, as in lead, could be
14 encapsulated via stabilization. The second
15 factor was that the presence of cobbles and
16 stones at the site would not impact the
17 proposed remedy and the third factor is
18 that the in-situ stabilization process
19 would be cost-effective.
20 As Rick reviewed before, there were
21 two alternatives, one was the EPA's
22 original remedy and Alternative 2 was the
23 remedy that the group was proposing the EPA
24 to consider. Alternative 1 is the
25 stabilization/landfill alternative which
•
BRODY & GEISER (908) 738-8555 (212) 732-0644
-------
12
1 entailed the stabilization of the north
2 lagoon area and central lagoon areas of
3 - " soil. The placement of the stabilized
4 soils into a landfill was constructed
5 on-site. The installation of a cap over
6 the stabilized.materials and the placement
7 of a final cover over the landfill. The
8 second alternative, the one that the group
9 requested the EPA to consider, entailed
10 first of all, the removal of hot spots, as
11 Rick said before, the removal of volatile
12 organic compounds within the north lagoon
13 area and central lagoon area that exceeded
14 100 milligrams per kilogram in
15 concentration and secondly, the in-situ
16 . stabilization of the remaining soils in the
17 central lagoon area and north lagoon area
18 and finally, the construction of a soil
19 cover over the stabilized mass.
20 Just to give you an idea what would
21 be involved with these two alternatives,
22 first of all, is the original remedy, the
23 EPA's original design which entailed a
24 number of specific steps. First of all,
25 the contaminated soils on the site would
•
BRODY & GEISER (908) 738-8555 (212) 732-0644
-------
13
1 have to be excavated out of the ground.
2 They would be placed in trucks. The soil.,
3 :' contaminated soils, v ould be transported to
4 a central processing facility on-site where
5 soil solidification would be added. Once
6 these soils were solidified, they would
7 again be placed in trucks and would be
8 moved to the on-site landfill. Alternately
9 the on-site landfill, if you have the
10 I treated soil within the landfill and,
11 ultimately you would, they would construct
12 a cap over the landfill and a final soil
13 cover.
14 The purposes of this figure is to
15 give you an idea of the extent of the
16 landfill on the property. The landfill
17 would have been about four acres in size
18 and would have taken up the entire north
19 lagoon area. That one segment of the
20 property that Rick pointed out before, near
21 the north lagoon area is a height of about
22 25, 30 feet above existing ground surface.
23 The alternate remedy that the group
.24 proposed the EPA consider really consisted
25 of what we call the in-situ stabilization
*
BRODY & GEISER (908) 738-8555 -(212) 732-0644
-------
: 4
1 of the contaminated soils. What is
2 involved in that process? You've got a
3 piece of construction equipr*.«?nt could be a
4 backhoe or a rake or something like that.
5 That piece of equipment adds cement like
6 materials into the soils in place. As you
7 can see, the soils here would be treated in
8 place, the treated soils are simply left
9 there. Once they're treated they're left
10 in place and when the entire soil is within
11 the north lagoon area and central lagoon
12 area are treated via this process if soil
13 is placed over the solidified mass and that
14 is the extent of the remediation.
15 This is a profile of what the
16 solidified mass will look like in the
17 central lagoon area. What you've got in
18 the yellow represents the California List
19 wastes where they formerly were as of the
20 materials that we removed this summer. The
21 green represents the solidified material,
22 the remaining contaminated soils that were
23 going to be stabilized in place and the
24 purple represents the topsoil cover that
25 will be put over the solidified mass.
*
BRODY & GEISER (908) 738-8555 (212) 732-0644
-------
15
1 . MR. ROBINSON: In evaluating the
2 remedies EPA looks at the leachate criteria
3 *nd the first seven I will- be goin--, .ver in
4 detail state acceptance, State of New
5 Jersey has already accepted, it accepts the
6 proposed --emedy change and right now we're
7 out here soliciting the community's
8 comments on this remedy.
9 The first evaluation criteria is
10 overall protection to human health in the
11 environment and Alternative 1 provides
12 overall protection of human health in the
13 environment. Alternative 1, the remaining
14 contaminated materials after the California
15 List wastes have been removed, will be
16 excavated and treated prior to placements
17 in on-site hazardous landfill. It would
18 encapsulate infiltration of rain surface
19 water and ground water. Alternative 2
20 would provide overall protection by soils
21 with concentrations of volatile organics
22 greater than 100 milligrams per kilogram
23 being sent off-site for treatment and
24 disposed. The remaining contamination
25 would be stabilized in place forming a low
BRODY & GEISER (908) 738-8555 (212) 732-0644
-------
16
1 permeability stabilized mass. This
2 solidified mass would practically eliminate
3 flow of ground flow of water through the
4 treated soil. Two feet of clean soil will
5 be placed over the solidified mass to
6 reduce potential exposure for direct
7 contact with the solidified mass and to
8 prevent erosion. The second evaluation
9 criteria is compliance with the applicable
10 or relevant and appropriate requirements
11 and both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2
12 meet the soil cleanup projectives that were
13 selected for the site through the
14 implementation of the air monitoring
15 program that would meet the federal and
16 state air emission requirements.
17 Alternative 1 will not meet the
18 requirements of this state's hazardous
19 waste landfill citing criteria because its
20 being built too close to the property
21 lines. By the way, they have been obtained
22 through that purpose. Alternative 2 does
23 not meet. That requirement is not
24 applicable since a landfill is not being
25 built. Land disposal restrictions,
BRODY & GEISER (908) 738-8555 (212) 732-0644
-------
17
1 Alternative 1 would meet the land disposal
2 restrictions and land disposal restrictions
3 are the regulations that deal with the
4 disposal of hazardous wastes. Alternative
5 2, they are not applicable since the soil
6 would be treated in plac*. in the ground.
7 However, the stabilization of the soil
8 under both alternatives will meet the same
9 requirements and both alternatives will
10 meet through wetland requirements.
11 The next evaluation criteria is
12 long-term effectiveness and permanence and
13 overall the first is reduction of risk.
14 Alternative 1 will reduce risk through the
15 stabilization, through contaminated soils
16 and containment of the on-site landfill.
17 Alternative 1 reduces risk through
18 stabilization of the soils in place,
19 forming a low permeability solidified
20 concrete mass.
21 Reduction in leachate generation is
22 important to prevent and also migration
23 ground water underlying the Caldwell
24 Trucking Site. Alternative 1 would reduce
25 the leachate generation through the
BRODY & GEISER (908) 738-8555 (212) 732-0644
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
stabilization to immobilize the
contaminants followed by landfil.ling of the
treated soil to isolate the materials from
water. Alternative 2 would reduce the
leachate generation. There would be no
leachate generation under Alternative 2
since it's not a landfill and the soils
would be encapsulated. Contaminated soils
would be encapsulated in a low permeability
concrete mass which would practically
eliminate infiltration of water and, as
required by Superfund, both alternatives
would require a five year review to
evaluate site conditions and if justified
by the review, additional remedial actions
may be implemented to remove or treat the
wastes.
Next evaluation criteria is
reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume.
Alternative 2. somewhat reduce the toxicity
in volume of the contaminated soils at the
site by the off-site treatment disposal of
the contaminated soils with volatile
organic compound concentrations greater
than 100 milligrams per kilogram. Neither
BRODY & GEISER (908) 738-8555 (212) 732-0644
-------
19
1 alternative would directly reduce the
2 intrinsic toxicity or volume of the
3 contaminant soils. Both alternatives would
4 immobilize the soil with chemical
5 stabilization and secondary reduction in
6 mobility would be obtained by either
7 containment in a hazardous waste landfill
8 which is Alternative 1 or by encapsulation
9 in a subsurface concrete solidified mass,
10 which is Alternative 2.
11 The next evaluation criteria is
12 short-term effectiveness. Alternative 1
13 through the supplementation of an air
14 monitoring program would construct dust,
15 air, odors and emissions as of
16 Alternative 2. The impacts on wetland
17 Alternative 1 would impact approximately
18 1.8 acres of wetlands that are at the site
19 versus a half acre for Alternative 2.
20 Alternative 1 would require approximately
21 5,000 truckloads to build the landfill and
22 250 truckloads would be.necessary for
23 Alternative 2. The construction time it
24 would take approximately 18 months to
25 complete Alternative 1 versus nine months
BRODY.& GEISER (908) 738-8555 (212) 732-0644
-------
20
1 for Alternative 2. The next evaluation
2 criteria is implementability for both
3 alternative technical equipment and skilled
4 workers are available. Numerous hazardous
5 waste sites have been remediated by
6 stabilization and containment methods
7 similar for both alternatives. Under
8 Alternative 2 procedures are the handling
9 of large debris and boulders that are
10 present at the site must be designed.
11 The final evaluation criteria that
12 we will be discussing is cost and the
13 capital cost for Alternative 1 is
14 approximately $13.2 million and with an
15 annual operation of maintenance cost of
16 $189,000 per year. Alternative 2 capital
17 cost is $8.4 million and annual operation
18 of maintenance cost is approximately
19 $93,000 per year. Preferred alternative is
20 Alternative 2, in-situ stabilization of the
21 contaminated soils. This alternative
22 provides long-term protection to human
23 health in the environment and practically
24 eliminates migration of contaminants to the
25 ground water, soils with volatile
v
BRODY & GEISER (908)738-8555(212)732-0644
-------
21
1 concentration, underlying the Caldwell
2 Trucking site for treatment and off-site ,
3 disposal of contaminated soils and the lead
4 and the remaining lower levels of the
5 volatile organics will be stabilized and
6 encapsulated in a concrete solidified
7 mass. This alternative has fewer
8 short-term impacts, 250 truckloads versus
9 5,000 truckloads for Alternative 1. The
10 preferred alternative was nine months to be
11 completed versus eight months to be
12 completed for Alternative 1, $5 million
13 less than Alternative 1 and operation and
14 maintenance costs are half of those for
15 Alternative 1.
16 This alternative provides the best
17 balance of trade-offs among the
18 alternatives with respect to the evaluation
19 criteria and EPA and the State believes
20 that the preferred remedy alternative will
21 protect human health in the environment,
22 comply with the applicable or relevant and
23 appropriate requirements, be cost-effective
24 and utilize permanent solutions and
25 alternative treatment technologies or
•
BRODY & GEISER'(908) 738-8555 (212) 732-0644
-------
22
1 resource recovery technologies to the
2 maximum extent practicable. The remedy
3 meets the statutory preference for the use
4 of the treatment as a principal element.
5 On that note, I'd like to open it up
6 for questions. If you would, please state
7 your name and who you are representing so
8 the stenographer can take it down.
9 Any questions?
10 MS. DONALDSON: I'm Robin Donaldson
11 with Two Bridges Sewerage Authority. I
12 just want to know the time period for the
13 excavation. What time period? Was that
14 going back to the original?
15 MR. ROBINSON: Going back to the
16 original work this summer?
17 MS. DONALDSON: Yes, in the summer.
18 Did it take place --
19 MR. ALONZO: It started mid August
20 and it finished Labor Day week. I'm John
21 Alonzo with De Maximis.
22 MR. ROBINSON: If you would like, you
23 can come up afterwards and ask individual
24 questions. Please sign in before you
25 leave. We have copies of the Proposed Plan
BRODY & GEISER (908) 738-'8555 (212) 732-0644
-------
23
1 and if you want to send any written
2 comments, the address and where to send
3 th'-m j.s in the Proposed Plan.
4 Thank you very much for attending
5 (Whereupon the meeting was concluded.)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BRODY & GEISER~T908) 738-8555 (212) 732-0644
-------
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIFICATE
I, LISA ARGENTIERI, a Notary Public and
Shorthand Reporter of the State of New Jersey do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate
transcript of the testimony a* tafcen stenographically
by and before me at the tine, place and on the date
hereinbefore set forth.
I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that I an neither a
relative or nor employee nor attorney nor counsel for
any of the parties to this action and that I am neither
a relative nor employee of such attorney or counsel,
and that I am not financially interested in the action.
Notary Public of the State of New Jersey
My Commission Expires February 16, 1998
BROOY & GEISER (908) 738-8555 or (212) 732-0644
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
10/21/94 Index Document Muter Order Page: 1
CALDUELL TRUCKING COMPANY, OPERABLE UMIT NO. 1 Docunent*
Document Nurtaer: CTC-001-0001 To 0046 Date: 02/25/85
Title: Potential Hazardous Waste Site Preliminary Assessment • Regional Contamination
Type: PLAN
Author: Fouler, Tea: Malcolm Pirnie. Inc.
Recipient: none: US EPA
Oocuaent Muster: CTC-D01-0047 To 0056 Date: 06/16/82
Title: Potential Hazardous Waste Site • Site Inspection Report - Caldwell Trucking Co. Site
Type: REPORT
Author: Harvey, Paul: NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Nunber: CTC-001-0057 To 0070 Date: 02/16/82
Title: (Heaorandun discussing) Well Sampling in Fairfield Township (with attached pages of historical
well data)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Harvey, Paul: NJ Department of Environmental Protection (HJDEP)
Recipient: Naack, Charles: NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
Document Nutber: CTC-001-0071 To 0089 Date: 06/01/84
Title: Conaunity Relations Plan - Caldwell Trucking, Fairfield Township, Essex County, New Jersey
Type: PLAN
Author: Meyer, Gilbert J.: NUS Corporation
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Muter: CTC-001-0090 To 0156 Date: 11/01/84
Title: Work Plan • Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study - Caldwell Trucking Conpany Site, Township
of Fairfield, Hew Jersey
Type: PLAN
Author: Mather, Stanley E. J.: NUS Corporation
Recipient: none: US EPA
-------
10/21/94 Index Docunent Number Order plge: 2
CALDWELL TRUOCIMG COMPANY, OPERABLE UNIT MO. 1 Docuaents
Docuaent Nuaber: CTC-001-0157 To 0372 Date: 06/01/85
Title: Site Operations Plan and General Health and Safety Requirements - Caldwell Trucking Conpany
Sit*
Type: PLAN
Author: Johnson, Leonard C.: NUS Corporation
Recipient: none: US EPA
Docunent Nuaber: CTC-001-0373 To 0566 Date: 06/01/86
Title: Remedial Investigation - Volume I: Text, Caldwell Trucking Site
Type: REPORT
Author: Johnson, Leonard C.: NUS Corporation
Recipient: none: US EPA
Docunent Nuaber: CTC-001-0567 To 0602 Date: 06/01/86
Title: Remedial Investigation • volime II: Puaping Test, Caldwell Trucking Company Site
Type: REPORT
Author: Johnson, Leonard C.: NUS Corporation
Recipient: none: US EPA
Docuaent Nunber: CTC-001-0603 To 0971 Date: 01/01/86
Title: Remedial Investigation • Voluae III: Appendices A and B, Caldwell Trucking Conpany Site
Type: REPORT
Author: Johnson, Leonard C.: NUS Corporation
Recipient: none: US EPA
Docuaent Nuaber: CTC-001-0972 To 1067 Date: 01/01/86
Title: Remedial Investigation - Voluae IV: Appendices C through G. Caldwell Trucking Company site
Type: REPORT
Author: Johnson. Leonard C.: NUS Corporation
Recipient: none: US EPA
-------
10/21/94 Index Docunent Nunber Order Page: 3
CALDUEU TRUCK I NO COMPANY, OPERABLE UNIT NO. 1 Docunents
Docuoent Hunber: CTC-001-1048 To 1049 Date: 09/30/86
Title: (Letter transmitting copies of the errata or corrections to the draft Remedial Investigation
and Feasibility Study reports)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Johnson, Leonard C.: KUS Corporation
Recipient: Fimerty, Edward J.: US EPA
Attached: CTC-001-10SO
Docunent Nunber: CTC-001-1050 To 1084 Parent: CTC-001-1048 Date: 09/01/86
Title: Errata - Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Final Reports, CaIdwell Trucking Conpany
Site
Type: REPORT
Author: Johnson, Leonard C.: NUS Corporation
Recipient: none: US EPA
Docunent Hunber: CTC-001-1085 To 1246 Date: 06/01/86
Title: Feasibility Study, Calduell Trucking Conpany Site
Type: REPORT
Author: Johnson, Leonard C.: NUS Corporation
Recipient: none: US EPA
Oocunent Nunber: CTC-001-1247 To 1379 Date: 06/01/86
Title: Feasibility Study • Voluoe II: Appendices A and B; Calduell Trucking Coopany site
Type: REPORT
Author: Johnson, Leonard C.: NUS Corporation
Recipient: none: US EPA '
Docuaent Nuaber: CTC-001-1380 To 1381 Date: 05/30/91
Title: Public Notice 91-64, Explanation of Significant Differences. Calduell Trucking Superfund Site
(Certification of publication attached)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: us EPA
Recipient: none: The Progress
-------
10/21/94 Index Docunent Nutter Order Page: 4
CALDWELL TRUCKING COMPANY, OPERABLE UNIT NO. 1 Docunents
Docuaent Miflber: CTC-001-1382 To 1383 Date: OS/03/91
Title: (Memo regarding^ Request for Approval of an Explanation of Significant Differences for the
Caldwell Trucking Superfund Site
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Callahan, Kathleen C.: US EPA
Recipient: Sidanon-ErUtoff. C.: US EPA
Docunent Nu*er: CTC-001-1384 To 1390 Date: 05/03/91
Title: Explanation of Significant Differences, Caldwell Trucking Site, and Supporting Information
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Docunent Nuxber: CTC-001-1391 To 1393 Date: 11/30/90
Title: (Letter and attached copy of resolution f90-146)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Tafuri, Spencer: Township of Fairfield
Recipient: Robinson, Rick: US EPA
Attached: CTC-001-1394
Oocunent Kutber: CTC-001-1394 To 1396 Parent: CTC-001-1391 Date: 10/09/90
Title: Resolution f90-146, EPA Water Purification Tower
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: Lcmley, Janet: Township of Fairfield
Recipient: none: none
Oocunent Umber: CTC-001-1397 To 1399 Date: 01/21/85
Title: Agenda: Public Meeting. Caldwell Trucking Site, Municipal Building, Fairfield, New Jersey
(with attachments)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Attached: CTC-001-1400 CTC-001-1401 CTC-001-1405
-------
10/21/94
Index Document Umber Order
CALOUELL TRUCKING COMPANY, OPERABLE UNIT HO. 1 Docunents
Document Nunber: CTC-001-1400 To HOO Parent: CTC-001-1397
Title: (Netting sign-in sheet, Calduell Trucking Company site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: none
Recipient: none: none
Date: 01/21/85
Page: 5
Document Number: CTC-001-1401 To 1404 Parent: CTC-001-1397
Title: Meeting Sunery: Caldwell Trucking, January 21, 1985
Type: PLAN
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Date: 01/21/85
Document Number: CTC-001-K05 To 1406 Parent: CTC-001-1397 Date: / /
Title: (Pamphlet:) Superfund: What It Is, How It Works (handout at a January 21, 1985, public nee ting)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Docunent Hunter: CTC-001-1407 To 1408
Date: 01/01/85
Title: (Fact sheet) Environmental Facts • Caldwell Trucking Site. Township of Fairfield, Essex County,
New Jersey
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none _
Document Nuxber: CTC-001-1409 To 1414
Date: 06/01/86
Title: (Fact sheet) Environmental Facts - Calduell Trucking Company Site - Status Advisory: Evaluation
of Remedial Alternatives
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
-------
10/21/94 Index Docunent Mmter Order Page: 6
CALDUELL TRUCKING COMPANY, OPERABLE UNIT NO. 1 Docunents
Document Muster: CTC-001-U15 To 1417 Date: 10/01/86
Title: Mews Release • EPA Selects Clean? Option for Superfund Site in Fairfield, NJ
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Document Nuaber: CTC-001-1418 To 1418 Date: 09/15/86
Title: (Neno forwarding) Record of Decision for CaIdwell Trucking Site for Approval
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Marshall, Janes R.: US EPA
Recipient: Daggett, Christopher J.: US EPA
Attached: CTC-001-U19
Document Muter: CTC-001-1419 To 1478 Parent: CTC-001-1418 Date: 09/25/86
Title: Record of Decision, Remedial Alternative Selection (Caldwell Trucking Company site)
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: Daggett, Christopher J.: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Docunent Nunber: CTC-001-1479 To 1511 Date: / /
Title: LEAD in the Environment (and other news articles related to the health effects of lead)
Type: REPORT
Author: Boggess, UilUaa «.: University of Illinois
Recipient: none: National Science Foundation
Docunent Nuaber: CTC-001-1512 To 1515 Date: 02/01/88
Title: (Letter containing NJDEP's comments on the revised Work Plan and the Quality Assurance Management
Plan for the Caldwell Trucking Company site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Longo, Lawrence J.: MJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJOEP)
Recipient: Fimerty, Edward J.: US EPA
-------
10/21/94 Index Document Nunber Order Page: 7
CALOUELL TRUOCIHG COMPANY, OPERABLE UNIT NO. 1 Documents
Oocunent Number: CTC-001-1516 To 1516 Date: 11/07/88
Title: (Mono forwarding the enclosed Preliminary Health Assessment for the CaI dwell Trucking Conpany
t*»«)
Type: CORKelPONOEHCE
Author: Johnson, Oenise: Agency for Toxic Substances t Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Nelson, WHUan: Agency for Toxic Substances ft Disease Registry (ATSOR)
Recipient: Ffmerty, Edward J.: US EPA
Attached: CTC-001-1517
Document Number: CTC-001-1517 To 1531 Parent: CTC-001-1516 Date: 10/01/88
Title: Health Assessavnt for Caldwell Trucking Conpany, Fairfield. New Jersey
Type: PLAN
Author: none: Agency for Toxic Substances t Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: CTC-001-1532 To 1532 Date: 11/28/88
Title: (Letter discussing soil excavation during the remedial action at the Caldwell Trucking Conpany
site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Reynolds, Frederick D.: US Army
Recipient: Singh, !o£al: INS Engineers/Architects
Document Number: CTC-001-1533 To 1681 Date: 08/01/89
Title: Evaluation of Lou Temperature Volatilization Systeas, Volume 2 (for the Calduell Trucking
Conpany cite)
Type: PLAN
Author: none: Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Recipient: none: IMS Engineers/Architects
-------
10/21/94 Index Docuaent Umber Order Page: 8
CALDWELL TRUCtCING COMPANY, OPERABLE UNIT HO. 1 Documents
Document Nuaber: CTC-001-1682 To 1688 Date: 12/22/89
Title: (Nero discussing excavation Units)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Hooker, Donald: none
Recipient: none: file
Document Nuaber: CTC-001-1689 To 1690 Date: 01/18/90
Title: (Nero sunaarizing a conversation held on January 18, 1990, regarding the excavation and treatment
of contaminated soil at the Caldwell Trucking Conpany site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Barry, Alison: US EPA
Recipient: Finnerty. Edward J.: US EPA
Oocuaent Nuaber: CTC-001-1691 To 1693 Date: 04/16/90
Title: (Letter with attached conaents en the 65X design subnittal for the Caldwell Trucking Company
site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Nagee, John F. II: NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
Recipient: Hooker, Donald: US Amy Corps of Engineers
Docunent Number: CTC-001-1694 To 1709 Date: 04/25/90
Title: (Transmittal slip with attached April 1990, Scope of work for additional field activities
at the Caldwell Trucking Company site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Hooker, Donald: us Any Corps of Engineers
Recipient: Finnerty, Edward J.: US EPA
-------
10/21/94 Index Docunent Nuaber Order Page: 9
CALDUELL TRUCKING COMPANY, OPERABLE UNIT HO. 1 Docunents
Docunent Nusber: CTC-001-1710 To 1711 Date: U6/13/90
Title: (Nemo discussing the significance of the TCLP rule for the remedial design of the Calduell
Trucking Company site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Barry, Alison: US EPA
Recipient: Finnerty. Edward J.: US EPA
Docunent Winter: CTC-001-1712 To 1715 Date: 09/04/90
Title: (Mean with attached Addendum to the Caldwell Trucking Company site Health Assessment)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Kent, Martha Dee: Agency for Toxic Substances I Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Recipient: Nelson. William: Agency for Toxic Substances I Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Document Nuaber: CTC-001-1716 To 1722 Date: 11/09/90
Title: (Letter containing the analyses of Waste Characterization Samples taken from the Caldwell
Trucking Company site)
Type: DATA
Author: Ross, Robert U. II: Acurex Corporation
Recipient: WaterIand, Larry: none
Document Nuaber: CTC-001-1723 To 1728 Date: 05/15/91
Title: (Letter responding to cements on the Acurex draft report regarding the Caldwell Trucking
Company site. The Acurex Report U contained within this Administrative Record as CTC 001
1793)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Thurnau. Robert C.: US EPA
Recipient: Finnerty. Edward J.: US EPA
-------
10/21/94 Index Docuaent Nunber Order ' Page: 10
CALDWELL TRUCKING COMPANY, OPERABLE UNIT NO. 1 Docunents
Docunent Hunber:' CTC-001-1729 To 1739 Date: 06/24/91
Title: (Nemo containing comaents on the technical review of the cut lines for the Calduell Trucking
Company site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Conti, Trish: NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
Recipient: Kelman, Zoe: NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
Docunent Nunber: CTC-001-1740 To 1743 Date: 08/20/91
Title: (Letter providing general guidelines pertaining to the regulations governing air permitting
for the Calduell Trucking Company site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Kelman-Shinn, Zoe: NJ Departaent of Enviromental Protection (NJDEP)
Recipient: Fimerty. Edward J.: US EPA
Docunent Nunber: CTC-001-1744 To 1744 Date: 09/26/91
Title: (Letter confirming an earlier telephone conversation regarding the control of polychlorinated
biphenyl (missions at the Calduell Trucking Company site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Kelnrt-Shinn, Zoe: NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
Recipient: Fimerty. Edward J.: US EPA
Document Nunber: CTC-001-1745 To 1746 Date: 11/02/91
Title: (Facsimile header sheet and attached sumary of PCS data for the Calduell Trucking Company
site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Enger. John: US Army Corps of Engineers
Recipient: Robinson, Rick: US EPA
-------
10/21/94 Index Document Nmfcer Order Page: 11
CALOWELL TRUCKING COMPANY, OPERABLE UNIT MO. 1 Docunents
Docunent Hiober: CTC-001-1747 To 1748 Date: 02/06/92
Title: Attachment I, Potential Air ARARs for the 9SX Review Subnittal for the Design Analysis for
Caldwell Trucking Company Superfund Site in Fairfield, New J.~«ey
Type: PLAN
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Oocuaent Muaber: CTC-OOV1749 To 1752 Date: 02/11/92
Title: (Letter containing the NOAA's review of documents relating tc the Caldwell Trucking Coopany
aite)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Csulak, Frank G.: National Oceanic I Atoospherie Administration (NOAA)
Recipient: Robinson, Rick: US EPA
Document Nuaber: CTC-001-1753 To 1753 Date: 02/13/92
Title: (Letter fro* the Air and Waste Management Division, Hazardous Waste Facilities trench regarding
the 95X Design Analysis for the proposed Site Remediation Excavation at the Caldwell Trucking
Coopany site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Bel Una, Andrew: US EPA
Recipient: Borsellino, Ronald: US EPA
Docunent Nufeer: CTC-001-1754 To 1756 Date: 02/21/92
Title: (Letter containing consents on the 95X Reaedial Design for the Caldwell Trucking Ccopany site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Creenlaw, David: US EPA
Recipient: Finnerty, Edward J.: US EPA
-------
10/21/94 Index Oocuaent Muofcer Order Page: 12
CALDUELL TRUOCIHG COW AMY, OPERABLE UNIT HO. 1 DocuaentS
Oocunent HtBber: CTC-001-1757 To 1766 Date: 03/02/92
Title: (Latter with cements on Materials subnitted for the 9SX Design for Remedial Action at the
Caldwetl i..--king Ceopany site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Vijayasundaran, S.: NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
Recipient: Mmerty, Edwrd J.: US EPA
Document Nmfcer: CTC-001-1767 To 1767 Date: 10/30/92
Title: (Letter «i:h plans for a biddability, constructabitity and operability review of documents
for th ".alduell Trucking Conpany site remediation excavation)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Beyer, Harry F. Jr.: US Ann/ Corps of Engineers
Recipient: none: US EPA
Attached: CTC-001-1768 CTC-001-1793 CTC-002-0001 CTC-002-0608
Docuaent Nuaber: CTC-001-1768 To 1792 Parent: CTC-001-1767 Date: 06/23/92
Title: 9SX Design Review Cements, Site Excavation Remediation. Ca I dwell Trucking Superfund Site,
Fairfield, NJ
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US Aray Corps of Engineers
Recipient: none: US EPA
Oocuaent Niofeer: CTC-001-1793 To 2338 Parent: CTC-001-1767 Date: / /
Title: Invitation for Bids, Calduell Trucking Conpany. Site Remediation Excavation, Design Analysis
(Design Analysis Report)
Type: PLAN
Author: none: US Amy Corps of Engineers
Recipient: none: US EPA
-------
10/21/94 Index Document Nuoter Order Page: 13
CALDUELL TRUCKIMG COMPANY, OPERABLE UNIT NO. 1 DocunentS
Oocunent Nunter: CTC-002-0001 To 0607 Parent: CTC-001-1767 Date: 10/01/92
Title: Caldwell Trucking Conpany, Site Remediation Excavation, Step 1 of Two-Step Sealed Bidding
Type: PLAN
Author: none: US Amy Corps of Engineers
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Muter: CTC-002-0608 To 0654 Parent: CTC-001-1767 Date: 08/01/92
Title: Calduell Trucking Co. Site Remediation, Fairfield, New Jersey (site maps)
Type: GRAPHIC
Author: none: US Any Corps of Engineers
Recipient: none: US EPA
DocuKnt Nusber: CTC-002-0655 To 0656 Date: / /
Title: (List of docuBents used as guidance in selecting and documenting modifications to the remedy
at the Calduell Trucking Coapany site)
Type: OTHER
Author: none: none
Recipient: none: none
Document Nwter: CTC-002-0657 To 0658 Date: 02/05/93
Title: (Memo providing minutes of a January 28. 1993, Beeting concerning VOC treatment technologies
for the Caldwell Trucking Coapany site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Robinson. Rick: US EPA
Recipient: file: US EPA
Oocunent Nunber: CTC-002-0659 To 0668 Date: 02/17/93
Title: Explanation of Significant Differences, Calduell Trucking Coapany Site, Fairfield Township,
New Jersey.
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: Nuszynski, Willie* J.: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
-------
10/21/94 Index Docuaent Umber Order Page: 14.
CALOUELL TRUCKING CCNPANT. OPERABLE UNIT NO. 1 DocuoentS
Oocunent Hu*er: CTC-002-0669 To 0726 Date: 02/03/94
Title: (Letter discussing the attached Catdwe.: Trucking Site OU1 - Alternate Remedial Approach)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: NcBurney, John P.: 'de aviari*. inc.
Recipient: Robinaon, Richard J-: US EPA
Oocuaent Nuaber: CTC-002-0727 To 0728 Date: 03/11/94
Title: (Letter regarding the Calduell Site Ti _-Vs proposed alternate reaedy for the on-*ite soils)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: NcBurney, John P.: de awiais, inc.
Recipient: Robinaon, Richard J.: US EPA
Docuaent Nuaber: CTC-002-0729 To 0730 Date: 03/18/94
Title: (Letter regarding the Calduell Trucking Ccnpany Site Trust's, February 3, 1994. Request for
Modification of Reaedy)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Nuszynski, Uillian J.: us EPA
Recipient: NcBurney, John P.: de aaxiBis, inc.
Document Nunber: CTC-002-0731 To 0731 Date: 10/14/94
Title: (Letter forwarding the Focused Feasibility Study. Operable Unit One)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Calduell Trucking Trust: ilasland ft Bouck Engineers
Recipient: Robinson. Richard J.: US EPA
Attached: CTC-002-0732 CTC*002-08S4
Oocuaent fta*er: CTC-002-0732 To 0853 Parent: CTC-002-0731 Date: 10/01/94
Title: Focused Feasibility Study, Operable Unit 1, Volune 1 of 2
Type: REPORT
Author: Calduell Trucking Trust: llasland I Bouck Engineers
Recipient: Robinson. Richard J.: US EPA
-------
10/21/94 index Docuwnt Muter Order
CALOUELL TRUCKING COMPANY, OPERABLE UNIT NO. 1 Documents
Docvmnt Umber: CTC-002-0854 To 1213 Parent: CTC-002-0731 Date: 10/01/9*
Title: Focused Feasibility Study. Operable Unit 1. Volume 2 of 2
Type: REPORT
Author: CaldMell Trucking Trust: Blasland & Bouck Engineers
Recipient: Robinson. Richard J.: US EPA
-------
ROD AMENDMENT FACT SHEET
SITE
Name : Caldwell Trucking Company Site
Location/State : Fairfield Township, New Jersey
EPA Region : 2
HRS Score (date): 58.30 (9/01/83)
Site ID # : NJD048798953
ROD Amendment
Date Signed: 2/27/95; amends ROD signed 9/25/86
Remedy In-situ stabilization
Operating Unit Number: OU-1
Capital cost: $8,384,000 (in 1995 dollars)
Construction Completion: 6/96
0 & M in 1995: $93,000 (in 1995 dollars)
1996: $93,000
1997: $93,000
1998: $93,000
Present worth: $9,538,000 (7% discount rate 30 years of 0 & M)
LEAD
EPA Enforcement - PRP Lead
Primary contact: Rick Robinson (212) 637-4371
Secondary contact: Charlie Tenerella (212) 637-4375
Main PRPs: Schering Plough, Curtiss Wright, DuPont, Cooper
Industries, Engelhard, Kearfott Guidance and
Navigation, and Carborundum Company
PRP Contact: Jack McBurney, de maximis, inc. (609) 735-9315
WASTE
Type: metals (primarily lead) and volatile organic compounds
Medium: soil
Origin: commercial, industrial and residential septic tank
contents land disposed on the property
Volume: Est. 38,000 cubic yards of soil
------- |