United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-90/114
September 1990
<&EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Chemical Leaman Tank
Lines, NJ
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-90/114
3. Recipient1* Accession No.
4. Title «nd Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, NJ
First Remedial Action
1. Author(s)
5. Report Date
09/28/90
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
». Performing Organization Name and Addreaa
10. Pro|ecVTask/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(O
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and AddreM
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report a Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Note*
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The 31-acre Chemical Leaman Tank Lines site is a liquid tanker truck terminal and
cleaning operation in Logan Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey. Surrounding land
use is primarily rural residential. An extensive wetlands area occupies the southern
and eastern portions of the site. An underlying aquifer was used as a local drinking
water supply until the late 1970s when ground water contaminants including solvents,
were detected in the aquifer; From 1961 to 1975, wastewater from tanker washing and
rinsing operations was discharged into a network of seven unlined settling/aeration
lagoons, which have been determined to be the source of the present organic and
inorganic contamination of soil, ground water, and adjacent wetlands. In 1975, a
rinse-water containment system was installed and the lagoons were no longer used in
the wastewater process. In 1977, liquid remaining in the lagoons was drained to the
wetlands, sludge was removed from settling lagoons, and these were filled with clean
soil and construction debris. Aeration lagoons were filled with perimeter diking
materials and construction debris, but the sludge was not removed. In 1982, visible
sludge was again removed from the settling lagoons. From 1980 to 1981, the State
documented onsite and offsite ground water contamination and consequently, in 1987,
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptor*
Record of Decision - Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, NJ
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Medium: gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE), organics, metals (arsenic, chromium, lead)
b. Identifiers/Open-ended Terms
C. COSAT1 Reid/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
90
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-90/114
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, NJ
First Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
six homes were connected to a public water supply as part of a removal action. A
current removal action will connect four more homes to this system. This Record of
Decision (ROD) addresses remediation of'the ground water contaminant plume. Subsequent
RODs will address source control, surface water, and sediment contamination. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting ground water are VOCs including benzene, PCE,
and TCE; other organics; and metals including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes pumping and treatment of ground
water using chemical precipitation to remove metals, an air stripper to remove VOCs,
and granular activated carbon to remove residual organic contaminants; incinerating
fumes from the air stripper unit onsite; discharging treated water to onsite surface
water; ground water monitoring; and conducting further studies to more thoroughly
characterize the contamination and the contaminant plume, and to more thoroughly define
the design and operation of the treatment system. The estimated present worth cost of
this remedial action is $5,420,000, which includes an estimated annual O&M cost of
$320,000 for 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Aquifer cleanup levels will utilize both Federal and
State Safe Drinking Water Act MCLs, which include benzene 1 ug/1 (State MCL), PCE
1 ug/1 (State MCL), TCE 1 ug/1 (State MCL), arsenic 50 ug/1 (MCL), chromium 50 ug/1
(State MCL), and lead 15 ug/1 (proposed MCL).
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. Site
Logan Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey
Region II
HRS Score: 47.53 (6-29-83)
NPL Rank: 222
ROD
ROD for Operable Unit One signed on September 28, 1990
Selected remedy for contaminated ground water includes ground-
water extraction, treatment (chemical precipitation, air
stripping and granulated activated carbon) and discharge to the
Delaware River.
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 2,480,000
Estimated O&M Cost/year: $ 320,000
Estimated Present Worth: $ 5,420,000
LEAD
Enforcement
EPA
Primary Contact: David Rosoff, Project Manager (212) 264-5397
Southern New Jersey Compliance Section
Secondary Contact: John LaPadula, Section Chief (212) 264-5388
Southern New Jersey Compliance Section
Main PRP: Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.
PRP Contact: Robert Shertz, Vice President of Environmental
Services (215) 363-4204
WASTE
Type: Volatile Organic Chemicals, Semivolatile Organic
Chemicals and Metals
Medium for this Operable Unit: Ground Water
Origin: Unlined earthen treatment and disposal lagoons
Estimated Plume Size:
Shallow Ground-water Subzone: 1000 by 1000 feet
Intermediate Ground-water Subzone: 1100 by 1700 feet
Deep Ground-water Subzone: 500 by 600 feet
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION - OPERABLE UNIT ONE
CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINES
Site N**"e and Location
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.
Logan Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
Operable Unit One of the Chemical Leaman Tank Lines site, in
Logan Township, New Jersey, which was chosen in accordance with
the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 and, to the
extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan. This decision document explains the
factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for this site.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection concurs
with the selected remedy. The information supporting this
remedial action decision is contained in the administrative
record for this site.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this Record of Decision, may present an imminent and
substantial threat to public health, welfare or the environment.
Description cf the Selected Remedy
The remedial action described in this document represents the
first of three planned operable units for the site. This first
operable unit action addresses the remediation of contaminated
ground water underlying the site and the surrounding area. The
goal of this action is to restore the aquifer to drinking water
quality. Operable unit two will address contaminant source areas
and contaminated soils. The third operable unit will deal with
the impacts of site contamination on nearby surface waters and
sediments.
-------
-2-
The major components of the selected remedy include:
• Extraction and treatment of the contaminated ground water
and discharge of the treated ground water via pipeline to
the Delaware River; and
• Environmental monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the
remedy.
Investigative studies concerning the second operable unit (i.e.,
contaminant source areas and contaminated soils) and third
operable unit (i.e., contamination in surface waters and
sediments in proximity of the site) are currently being
implemented.
Declaration of Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment (or resource
recovery) technologies to the maximum extent practicable, and it
satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ
treatment that reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume as their
principal element.
At the conclusion of this remedy, there may be no hazardous
substances remaining in the ground water above health-based
levels. However, because the remedial goals will not be obtained
within five years, the five-year review will apply to this
remedial action.
C«ms1:antine Sidamon-Eristoff / Date /
^Regional Administrator /
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION - OPERABLE UNIT ONE
CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINES
Site Location and Description
The Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. Bridgeport terminal property
is located in Logan Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey,
approximately two miles south of the Delaware River and one mile
east of the town of Bridgeport (Figure 1). The Pennsylvania
Reading Seashore Lines Railroad borders the Chemical Leaman
property to the north and separates it from several private
homes. Route 44 and Cedar Swamp Road parallel the railroad on
its north and south sides, respectively. A reach of the Great
Cedar Swamp and Moss Branch flank the site to the south and east,
and Oak Grove Road runs through the western portion of the
Chemical Leaman property (Figure 2). Cooper Lake, a small,
privately owned lake, lies just north of the Chemical Leaman
property between Route 44 and Route 130.
The Chemical Leaman site encompasses approximately 31.4 acres.
The site includes, but is not limited to, the active terminal
used for the dispatching, storage, maintenance and cleaning of
tanker trucks and trailers; fallow farmland adjacent to the
terminal; and the wetlands bordering the terminal to the south
and east. Surface structures on the Chemical Leaman property
include the terminal building, an enclosed stainless steel
wastewater settling tank, and a concrete wastewater holding tank
(Figure 2). Former subsurface structures include seven earthen
settling and aeration lagoons considered to be the source areas
for the ground-water contamination (Figure 2).
Ten residences have been located within 1200 feet of the Chemical
Leaman property (Figure 3). The majority of these homes are due
north or due south of the Chemical Leaman property. Until 1987,
most of the residents in the vicinity of the site maintained
individual water supply wells. Several of these wells have not
been used for drinking water since levels of solvents and other
chemicals and hazardous substances above drinking water standards
were detected in the ground water in the late 1970s. However,
some of these homes continue to use ground water for showering,
washing and irrigation. During 1987, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a Removal Action and connected
six homes north of the Chemical Leaman property on Route 44 to an
extension of the Bridgeport Municipal Water System. During the
interim between the late 1970s and the date of the completion of
-------
the municipal water line, Chemical Leaman provided potable water
from Pureland Water Company (now Logan Water Well Company) to
those homes in the area requesting it. Presently, one home
receives bottled potable water from Pureland Water Company. EPA
has recently authorized a Removal Action to connect four homes
immediately south and west of the Chemical Leaman property to a
municipal water line.
The private wells in the area of the site tap ground water from
the upper hydrologic unit of the Potomac Group-Raritan Formation.
Ground water in this unit tends to flow downward due to a
downward vertical hydraulic gradient. The horizontal gradients
in the area are very shallow making flow patterns difficult to
determine. Ground-water mounding which occurred when the former
lagoons were in use caused ground water to flow radially away
from the lagoons. Based on the results of recent ground-water
monitoring, however, it appears that the ground water presently
flows slowly in a northerly/northeasterly direction.
Site History and Enforcement Activities
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. transports chemical commodities
in bulk quantities, some of which are classified as hazardous.
Table 1 lists some of the hazardous materials historically
transported by the company. The Chemical Leaman terminal has
been in operation since 1961. Past wastewater handling and
disposal practices at the site have resulted in organic and
inorganic contamination of soil, ground water and the adjacent
wetlands.
Prior to 1975, wastewater generated in the washing and rinsing
operations was impounded in one of seven unlined settling and/or
aeration lagoons before being discharged to the adjacent
wetlands. These lagoons were taken out of service in August
1975, when Chemical Leaman installed a new rinse-water
containment system at the terminal. In early 1977, liquid
remaining in the settling and aeration lagoons was reportedly
drained into the adjoining wetlands. Accumulated sludge in the
bottoms of the settling lagoons was vacuumed prior to backfilling
with clean fill and construction debris. Accumulated sludge in
the aeration lagoons was not removed, and the lagoons were filled
with perimeter diking materials and construction debris. In
1982, Chemical Leaman reportedly excavated visible sludge and
contaminated soil from the former settling lagoons to an
approximate depth of twelve feet below the surface, and the
excavation was backfilled with clean sand. Residual
contamination in the soils is currently being investigated by
EPA.
-------
In 1980-81, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) documented volatile organic contamination in the ground
water beneath the Chemical Leaman site, as well as in neighboring
private wells. In 1981, Chemical Leaman conducted a
hydrogeologic investigation to determine the extent of the
ground-water contamination. Twenty-five monitoring wells were
installed, and between 1981 and 1983, these wells were sampled on
a quarterly basis.
In 1985, EPA included the Chemical Leaman Tank Lines site on the
National Priorities List of Superfund sites when it was
recognized that Chemical Leaman-related ground-water
contamination of a number of residential wells posed an immediate
threat to human health and the environment. An Administrative
Order on Consent (Index No. II CERCLA-50111) between EPA and
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. was signed in July 1985 pursuant
to which Chemical Leaman agreed to conduct a Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study to delineate the nature and
extent of site-related contamination in the ground water, soils
and surface waters at and around the Chemical Leaman site.
Between 1985 and 1989, Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. conducted
a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study at the site. In
June 1989, EPA determined that the draft RI/FS documents prepared
by Chemical Leaman were incomplete and inappropriate for public
release and for preparing a Record of Decision. Consequently,
EPA withdrew the studies from Chemical Leaman on June 15, 1989
and proceeded to revise the Remedial Investigation, Feasibility
Study and Risk Assessment documents, unilaterally. EPA developed
a Feasibility Study Addendum to present a more complete
description of Chemical Leaman-related contamination in the
ground water and alternative methods which could be used to
remediate the ground water.
The Operable Unit One Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study Reports, Feasibility Study Addendum, Risk Assessment and
Proposed Plan for the Chemical Leaman Tank Lines site were
released to the public for comment on July 14, 1990. These
documents were made available to the public, in both the
administrative record file located at EPA Region II's New York
city office and at an information repository maintained at the
Logan Township Municipal Building, 73 Main Street, Bridgeport,
New Jersey. The notice of availability for these documents was
published in the Gloucester County Times on July 15, 1990. A
public comment period on the documents was held from July 15,
1990 to August 14, 1990. In addition, a public meeting was held
on July 24, 1990. At this meeting, representatives from EPA
answered questions about problems at the site and the remedial
-------
alternatives under consideration. A response to the comments
received during this period is included in the Responsiveness
Summary, which is part of this Record of Decision (ROD).
Scope and Role of operable Unit One
As with many Superfund sites, the problems at the Chemical Leaman
Site are complex. As a result, EPA has organized the remedial
work into three phases or operable units. This ROD addresses the
first planned remedial action at the site. This action addresses
the remediation of the ground-water contamination associated with
the site.
In this ROD, EPA is selecting a remedial action that will
permanently mitigate the ground-water contamination at the site.
This action will be the first operable unit of the remediation of
the entire site. EPA has elected to address the contaminated
ground water as the first operable unit because of the principal
threat posed by the present and future potential for ingestion
of, inhalation of, and dermal contact with contaminated ground
water, and because sufficient information is presently available
to select an appropriate remedy for this problem.
Future operable units will address the source of contamination,
contaminated soils and site-related surface water and sediment
contamination. EPA is currently conducting a Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study to assess the sources of
contamination, including the former lagoon areas (Operable Unit
2). EPA expects to sign a ROD for source contamination in late
1991. A Work Plan is currently in preparation to address surface
water and sediment contamination at and around the site (Operable
Unit 3). A ROD for site-related surface water and sediment
contamination is planned for mid 1992.
Summary of Site Characteristics
Site Geology
Review of the geologic literature indicates that four geologic
units underlie the Chemical Leaman Tank Lines site. From deepest
to shallowest, these include the Wissahickon Formation (schist
bedrock) located at a subsurface elevation of approximately -250
feet mean sea level (MSL); the lower zone of sediments of the
undifferentiated Potomac Group-Raritan Formation at approximately
-200 to -250 feet (MSL); a regionally continuous clay or series
of regionally continuous clay units between approximately -150
and -200 feet (MSL); the upper zone of the undifferentiated
Potomac Group-Raritan Formation and where locally present, the
overlying Cap May Formation. The majority of geologic
-------
information obtained during the Remedial Investigation field
activities pertains to the uppermost of these geologic units
which occurs beneath the site in the interval from up to +20 feet
(MSL) to subsurface elevations of approximately -150 feet (MSL).
Results of the hydrogeologic investigation indicate that the
upper 150 feet of sediments can be separated into three water-
bearing subzones (shallow {-20 ft), intermediate {-100 ft) and
deep (-150 ft}) within the upper zone of the undifferentiated
Potomac Group-Raritan Formation (Figure 4). These subzones are
delineated by their subsurface elevation and their stratigraphic
position relative to several semi-continuous clay layers.
Drillers logs obtained by EPA indicate the presence of a
regionally consistent water-bearing sand unit from approximately
-200 feet (MSL) to approximately -250 feet (MSL) which is part of
the lower zone of the undifferentiated Potomac Group-Raritan
Formation.
Analysis of vertical hydraulic gradients at the Chemical Leaman
site indicates a downward component of ground-water flow which
may enhance the likelihood of vertical migration of contaminants.
Horizontal hydraulic gradients in the various water-bearing zones
are relatively low, ranging from 0.0003 - 0.002 feet/foot.
Ground-water Contamination
As part of the Remedial Investigation, 21 ground-water monitoring
wells were installed: 6 in the upper subzone, 11 in the
intermediate subzone, and four 4 in the deep subzone. Sampling
of these wells indicated that the ground water in all three
subzones of the upper aquifer is contaminated to varying extents
by hazardous substances beneath the Chemical Leaman site.
Contaminants include volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-
volatile organic compounds and metals (Table 2). Solvents,
including trichloroethene, trans-l,2-dichloroethene, and other
volatile organic compounds are the contaminants present in the
highest concentrations in the ground water. Table 3 provides a
summary of the maximum concentrations of the major contaminants
found in each subzone.
Site-related contaminants are concentrated in the shallow and
intermediate subzones. The VOC concentration in the shallow
subzone ranges from nondetectable levels to greater than 22,000
parts per billion (ppb) beneath the former settling lagoons. The
voc concentration in the intermediate subzone exceeds 75,000 ppb
beneath the former settling lagoons. VOC concentrations in the
deep subzone are relatively low compared to the other subzones
(Table 3). However, these contaminant levels may not be
representative of the maximum contamination present in the deep
subzone since there are no deep subzone wells in the areas of the
former wastewater lagoons.
-------
The highest concentration of all contaminants in the ground water
was detected in the vicinity of the former wastewater lagoons.
The contaminant plumes radiate out from these apparent source
areas, probably as a result of ground-water mounding that
occurred while the lagoons were in use. The present extent of
the contaminated ground-water plume is estimated to be 1000 feet
long by 1000 feet wide in the shallow subzone, 1100 feet long by
1700 feet wide i-n the intermediate sub zone, and 600 feet long by
500 feet wide in the deep subzone.
The contamination is spreading both laterally and vertically at a
slow rate. The shallow horizontal hydraulic gradient has made
direction of ground-water flow difficult to determine. However,
the ground water and the associated contaminant plumes appear to
be moving in a north to northeasterly direction at a rate of 20
feet/year. Samples collected from the deep subzone demonstrate
that contaminants have migrated downward from the site soils and
shallow ground water. The downward component of ground-water
flow is responsible for this vertical contaminant migration.
Local residences surrounding the Chemical Leaman property,
workers using contaminated ground water at the site and the
surface waters nearby the site (Cedar Swamp, Cooper Lake, and
Moss Branch) are all threatened by exposure to the ground-water
contamination.
Soil Contamination
The soil sampling conducted in the Remedial Investigation
included the collection of soil samples at various depths from a
total of 49 locations at the site. The soil samples were
collected to assess the extent of soil contamination in the
vicinity of the former lagoons, the lagoon overflow area and the
terminal truck parking lot/driveway area.
Results of the soil sampling indicate that soil with
concentrations of priority pollutant inorganic and organic
constituents occur in the vicinity of the lagoons, in the
overflow area east of the former settling lagoons and at several
locations in the gravel truck parking lot/driveway area.
Priority pollutant contaminants present at concentrations above
NJDEP soil action levels at the site include volatile organics,
base neutral extractable (semi-volatile) compounds and inorganic
compounds. The concentrations of semi-volatiles in soil range
from nondetectable levels in background areas to greater than
1,900 parts per million (ppm) in the vicinity of the former
settling and aeration lagoons. Concentrations of VOCs (up to 396
ppm) (mainly solvents) and metals (mainly arsenic, lead and
-------
cadmium) in excess of NJDEP soil action levels occur in many of
the same locations as elevated concentrations of semi-volatiles.
Table 4 provides a summary of maximum concentrations of major
contaminants detected in the soil samples.
A supplemental Remedial Investigation is being conducted by EPA
to evaluate further the soil contamination in the active
terminal/parking lot area and within the former aeration and
settling lagoons.
Surface-Water and Sediment Contamination
The Operable Unit One Remedial Investigation included preliminary
sampling and analyses of surface water and sediment from Cedar
Swamp, Moss Branch and Cooper Lake. During a supplementary field
effort in 1987, an electromagnetic conductivity survey was also
conducted in Cedar Swamp to the southeast of the Chemical Leaman
property. Both the sampling and the conductivity study suggest
portions of the wetlands adjacent to the active terminal area
have been contaminated by Chemical Leaman Tank Lines' past
wastewater treatment/disposal practices. A separate RI/FS for
Operable Unit 3 is underway to determine the nature and extent of
the contamination in the wetlands area.
pf Site
EPA conducted an Endangerment Assessment (EA) of the "no action"
alternative to evaluate the potential risks to human health and
the environment associated with the Chemical Leaman Tank Lines
site in its current state. The EA focused on the ground-water
contaminants (indicator chemicals) which are likely to pose the
most significant risks to human health and the environment.
These "indicator chemicals" and their concentrations in the
ground water are shown in Table 5.
The residents living along Cedar Swamp Road and Oak Grove Road
and workers involved in the Chemical Leaman trailer-rinsing
operations at the active terminal were assumed to be two
potentially exposed populations identified at the site. The
contaminant pathways examined in the risk assessment were
shallow/intermediate/deep subzone ground-water usage and ground-
water contaminant emissions caused by the truck-rinsing operation
at the Chemical Leaman property.
EPA's EA identified several potential exposure pathways by which
the public may be exposed to contaminant releases from the
Chemical Leaman site. These pathways and the populations
potentially affected are shown in Table 6. The following
exposure pathways were evaluated in the risk assessment for
residents living near the site:
-------
• Inhalation of volatilized compounds from ground water during
trailer-rinsing operations
• Inhalation of and dermal contact during bathing activities
with compounds detected in the shallow/intermediate subzone
ground water
• Ingestion of compounds detected in shallow/intermediate
subzone ground water
• Inhalation of and dermal contact during bathing activities
with compounds detected in the deep subzone ground water
• Ingestion of compounds detected in the deep subzone ground
water
Two exposure pathways were evaluated in the risk assessment for
Chemical Leaman workers. These were:
• Inhalation of compounds detected in the ground water at the
Chemical Leaman production well
• Dermal contact with compounds detected in the ground water
at the Chemical Leaman production well
Exposures were likely to be different for adults and children
living in the residential areas because of different behavioral
patterns. For this reason, exposures were calculated separately
for three age groups: children ages 2 to 6, children ages 6 to
12 and adults. Lifetime-weighted exposures were then calculated
by combining exposures for all age groups in order to estimate
the risk posed to an individual who might live near the site for
a lifetime.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic
(cancer causing) and noncarcinogenic effects due to exposure to
site chemicals are considered separately. It was assumed that
the toxic effects of the site-related chemicals would be
additive. Thus, carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks
associated with exposures to individual indicator compounds were
summed to indicate the potential risks associated with mixtures
of potential carcinogens and noncarcinogens, respectively.
Noncarcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index (HI)
approach, based on a comparison of expected contaminant intakes
and safe levels of intake (Reference Doses). Reference doses
(RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential
for adverse health effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units
of mg/kg-day, are estimates of daily exposure levels for humans
which are thought to be safe over a lifetime (including sensitive
-------
individuals). Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental
media (e.g., the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated
drinking water) are compared with the RfD to derive the hazard
quotient for the contaminant in the particular media. The hazard
index is obtained by adding the hazard quotients for all
compounds across all media. A hazard index greater than 1
indicates that P9tential exists for noncarcinogenic health
effects to occur as a result of site-related exposures. The
hazard index provides a useful reference point for gauging the
potential significance of multiple contaminant exposures within a
single medium or across media.
The acceptable intake for subchronic exposures (AIS) and the RfDs
for noncarcinogenic effects from ground-water exposure at the
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines site are presented in Table 7. The
hazard indices for noncarcinogenic effects from ground-water
exposure are listed in Table 9. The hazard index for exposures
to ground water in the shallow/intermediate subzone is 41.6,
suggesting that noncarcinogenic effects may occur.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer
potency factors developed by EPA for the indicator compounds.
Cancer potency factors (CPFs) have been developed by EPA's
Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor for estimating
excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to
potentially carcinogenic chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed in
units of (mg/kg-day)', are multiplied by the estimated intake of
a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to generate an upper-bound
estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with
exposure to the compound at that intake level. The term "upper
bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated
from the CPF. Use of this approach makes underestimation of the
risk highly unlikely. The CPFs for the indicator chemicals are
presented in Table 8.
For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper
bound individual lifetime cancer risks of between 1 X 10^ to 1 X
10* to be acceptable. This level indicates that an individual
has not greater than a one in ten thousand to one in a million
chance of developing cancer as a result of exposure to site
conditions. The risks associated with exposures at the site are
presented in Table 9. The potential risks to residents due to
carcinogens at the site are greater than the acceptable EPA risk
range of 10^ to 10"6 as defined by the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.
Risks to public health include actual or potential risks to
residents around the site and Chemical Leaman's workers.
Residents may be impacted from the ingestion of contaminated
ground water and inhalation of volatile contaminants in
-------
residential water supplies or from the trailer-rinsing operations
at the site. Chemical Leaman's workers may be impacted from the
inhalation of and dermal contact with contaminated ground water
during trailer-rinsing operations. EPA has determined that
actual or potential site-related risks warrant a remedial action
for the site.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this Record of Decision, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, and/or the
environment.
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this
evaluation, as in all such assessments, are subject to a wide
variety of uncertainties. In general, the main sources of
uncertainty include:
• environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
• environmental parameter measurement
• fate and transport modeling
• exposure parameter estimation
• toxicological data
Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the
potentially uneven distribution of chemicals in the media
sampled. Consequently, there is significant uncertainty as to
the actual levels present. Environmental chemistry analysis
error can stem from several sources including the errors inherent
in the analytical methods and characteristics of the matrix being
sampled. Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related to
estimates of how often an individual would actually come in
contact with the chemicals of concern, the period of time over
which such exposure would occur, and in the models used to
estimate the concentrations of the chemicals of concern at the
point of exposure. Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in
extrapolating both from animals to humans and from high to low
doses of exposure, as well as from the difficulties in assessing
the toxicity of a mixture of chemicals. These uncertainties are
addressed by making conservative assumptions concerning risk and
exposure parameters throughout the assessment. As a result, EPA
provides upper bound estimates of the risks to populations near
the site, and is highly unlikely to underestimate actual risks
related to the site.
For more specific information concerning public health risks,
including quantitative evaluation of the degree of risk
associated with various exposure pathways, please see the volume
entitled Risk Assessment Report for Chemical Leaman Tank Lines.
10
-------
Inc. Superfund Site Operable Unit 1 located at EPA's information
repository in the Township Clerk's Office at the Logan Township
Municipal Building in Bridgeport, New Jersey.
Environmental Risks
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service characterizes the Chemical
Leaman site and surrounding area as a Disturbed Upland Area,
corresponding roughly to the Chemical Leaman terminal; Palustrine
Forested Wetland, corresponding to the reach of the Great Cedar
Swamp southeast of the Chemical Leaman terminal; and Palustrine
Open Water Habitat, corresponding to Cooper Lake and its
surrounding shoreline.
Vegetation within these areas include: various trees (crab apple,
cherry, black cherry, red maple, white oak, red oak, pin oak,
honey locust, black willow, southern white cedar and black oak),
rose bush, broom sedge, goldenrod, dogbane, phragmites, cattail,
blue vervain, poison ivy, green brier, arrowwood viburnum, water
hemp, jewelweed, skunk cabbage, sensitive fern, elderberry, water
lily, smooth alder, Japanese honeysuckle, arrowarum and various
grasses.
Various forms of wildlife inhabit the areas surrounding the
Chemical Leaman site. Representative species include: starling,
red-winged blackbird, song sparrow, robin, purple finch, black
and white warbler, yellow-rumped warbler, blue jay, dove, mocking
bird, goldfinch, grackle, brown thrasher, white-throated sparrow,
Carolina wren, house wren, tree swallow, common yellow-throat,
rusty blackbird, wood duck, veery, flicker, cardinal, downy
woodpecker, black duck, Canada goose, woodcock, squirrel,
muskrat, skunk, rabbit, groundhog, raccoon, red fox, whitetail
deer, black snake, green frog, tree frog, northern spring peeper,
bull frog, box turtle, painted turtle, snapping turtle,
bluegills, pumpkinseed, suckers, brown bullhead, black crappie,
white crappie, minnows, carp, sunfish, catfish and bass.
In addition, Cedar Swamp and Cooper Lake provide a significant
shelter for migratory bird species such as Canada goose, wood
duck, mallard, black duck, coot, lesser scaup and other waterfowl
species.
Short-nosed sturgeon are present in the Delaware River and use
the river in the vicinity of the site as a migratory corridor.
The species is on the Federal Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants list (Federal Register, 1983).
Endangered species suspected to inhabit the area surrounding the
Chemical Leaman Site include the osprey, which was severely
threatened in the 1960s but presently is recovering, the bog
turtle and the eastern tiger salamander. The U.S. Department of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service has informed EPA that,
11
-------
with the exception of occasional transient species, no proposed
or threatened endangered flora or fauna known to exist adjacent
to the Chemical Leaman site.
Description of Alternatives
This section describes the remedial alternatives which were
developed, using suitable technologies, to meet the objectives of
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan and
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended. These alternatives were
developed by screening a wide range of technologies for their
applicability to site-specific conditions and evaluating them for
effectiveness, implementability and cost. A comprehensive list
of remedial technologies was compiled to characterize each
technology and determine its applicability to the site. The
technologies remaining after preliminary screening were assembled
into various combinations to form six ground-water treatment
alternatives and four treated ground-water discharge alternatives
in the Operable Unit One Feasibility Study. Of the six treatment
combinations, only two have been retained for the proposed
remediation plan. The point of discharge of the treated ground
water specifies the degree of treatment which will be required.
The treatment process EPA has proposed for the remediation of the
contaminated ground water consists of metals precipitation, air
stripping and granulated activated carbon. These technologies
have traditionally proven to be effective in removing the types
of contaminants present in the ground water. To meet the
stringent total dissolved solids (TDS) requirements for the
discharge of treated ground water into Moss Branch, a reverse
osmosis process would have to be added to this treatment
combination.
EPA did not propose the UV/peroxidation processes that were
retained in the Operable Unit One Feasibility Study as part of
the preferred treatment scenario as they have been less widely
used than the above-mentioned technologies.
The treatment combinations and discharge options described
separately in the Operable Unit One Feasibility Study were
combined to develop comprehensive ground-water remedial
alternatives. These include:
• Alternative 1: No Action with Ground-Water Monitoring
• Alternative 2: Ground-Water Extraction, Treatment and
Discharge to Moss Branch
12
-------
• Alternative 3: Ground-Water Extraction, Treatment and
Reinjection into the Upper Aquifer
• Alternative 4: Ground-Water Extraction, Treatment and
Injection into the Lower (Brine) Aquifer
• Alternative 5: Ground-Water Extraction, Treatment and
Discharge to the Delaware River
Alternative 1: Ho Action
Construction Cost: $0
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost: $30,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $300,000
Implementation Time: 30 years
A No Action alternative is evaluated at every Superfund site to
establish a baseline for comparison with treatment remedial
alternatives. Under the No Action alternative, EPA would not
take any action to remediate or control the ground-water
contamination at the site. The No Action alternative would
consist of ground-water monitoring only. The operation and
maintenance requirements include the labor and analytical
services needed to conduct quarterly sampling of four on-site
wells.
Alternative 2: Ground-water Extraction/ Treatment and
Discharge to Moss Branch
Construction Cost: $3,289,400
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost: $876,100
Total Present Worth Cost: $13,562,900
Implementation Time: 30 years
The major features of this alternative include: installation of
ground-water extraction wells and a ground-water treatment system
with discharge to Moss Branch. The extraction well network would
consist of an estimated seven recovery wells with a combined
pumping rate of 200 gallons per minute. Three wells would be
screened in the shallow subzone, three in the upper intermediate
subzone, and one in the lower intermediate subzone. The
extraction gallery parameters (number of wells, well placement,
pumping rate and aquifer characteristics) will be refined during
the Operable Unit One Remedial Design.
This alternative was developed to produce a treated effluent that
would meet the New Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination System
limitations for a discharge to Moss Branch. The extracted ground
water would be pumped to a treatment system where chemical
13
-------
precipitation would be used to remove iron as well as heavy
metals. Next, the ground water would be pumped through an air
stripper to remove volatile organic compounds. The stripper off-
gas would pass through a fume incinerator which would destroy the
airborne volatile organic compounds. Alternatively, vapor phase
carbon (VPC) or granulated activated carbon (GAC) could be
utilized to capture airborne volatile organic compounds. The
ground water leaving the stripper would be pumped through a
granulated activated carbon system to remove residual organic
contaminants. Following this treatment, the water would be
passed through the reverse osmosis unit to remove dissolved
solids or salts from the ground water. The waste stream produced
by the reverse osmosis unit would be sent off site for treatment.
Subsequently, the treated ground water would be discharged to the
Moss Branch at an estimated rate of 288,000 gallons per day via
pumping or gravity flow. Minimal piping, engineering and
construction would be necessary to discharge the.treated ground
water because Moss Branch is proximal to the site.
The final remedial goal of this alternative is to restore the
quality of the ground water to the criteria published in the New
Jersey Administrative Code, Title 7, Chapter 9, Subchapter 6,
Section 6, Subsection (b) (N.J.A.C. 7:9-6.6 (b)), and to the
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established pursuant to the
Federal and State Safe Drinking Water Acts (Table 10).
The treated ground-water discharge for this alternative would
meet the limitations outlined on Table 11 which were derived from
the New Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination System (New Jersey
Administrative Code Title 7, Chapter 14A (N.J.A.C. 7:14A)).
Alternative 3: Ground-Water Extraction, Treatment and
Reinjection into the Upper Aquifer
Construction Cost: $1,731,000
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost: $992,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $12,024,000
Implementation Time: 30 years
The extraction system used for this alternative would be similar
to the extraction well gallery described for Alternative 2,
above.
The treatment system in this alternative is similar to the one
described above for Alternative 2 with the exception that reverse
osmosis would not be utilized. The ground water would be treated
to the levels presented in Table 10, which are also the
restoration goals of the aquifer.
14
-------
Due to the shallow water table, treated ground water would be re-
injected into the upper aquifer's deep subzone which occurs from
100 feet to 150 feet below the ground surface. It is unlikely
that the ground water could be reinjected above the deep subzone,
without the water short-circuiting to the ground surface. It is
envisioned that a re-injection gallery of six wells would be
required, with a. combined pumping rate of 200 gallons per minute.
Prior to implementing this alternative, a reinjection-well pilot
study would need to be conducted and a three-dimensional
mathematical model would be developed to determine the
effectiveness of this alternative. Due to the high iron content
of the ground water, the reinjection system would require an
aggressive well maintenance program to control scaling and
clogging and ensure continuous operation. Each of the six wells
would have a backup well to permit continuous operation during
maintenance periods.
Alternative 4: Ground-Water Extraction/ Treatment and
Injection into the Lover (Brine) Aquifer
Construction Cost: $1,571,000
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost: $858,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $10,593,000
Estimated Implementation Time: 30 years
The extraction system used for this alternative would be similar
to the extraction well gallery described for Alternative 2 above.
The treatment in this alternative is the same as that described
above for Alternative 3. The treatment requirements of
Alternative 4 were conservatively estimated to be the same as
those described for Alternative 3 (Table 10) despite the
nonpotable nature of the ground water in the brine aquifer.
The treated ground water would be pumped into the brackish, lower
aquifer located below the upper water table-aquifer at
approximately 170 feet below the ground surface. This aquifer is
separated from the three subzones of the upper aquifer by a
regionally extensive clay and silt layer approximately 30 feet
thick. The geophysical logs from deep wells in this aquifer
indicate that the aquifer is composed of sands which could be
suitable material for injection. An injection gallery of five
wells (and five backup wells for use during maintenance periods)
would be required, with a combined pumping rate of 200 gallons
per minute. Unlike Alternative 3, injected water surfacing above
ground is not a concern. As a result, each of the Alternative 4
wells could be operated at a higher pumping rate resulting in the
need for one less well and one less backup well than required for
Alternative 3. Alternative 4 would also require an aggressive
well maintenance schedule as described in Alternative 3. The
15
-------
difference in costs between Alternatives 3 and 4 is attributed to
the difference in the number of re-injection wells and the
associated costs of long-term operation and maintenance of these
wells.
Alternative 5: Ground-Water Extraction, Treatment and
Discharge to the Delaware River
Construction Cost: $2,480,000
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost: $320,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $5,420,000
Implementation Time: 30 years
The extraction system used for this alternative would be similar
to the extraction well gallery described for Alternative 2,
above.
Although the Delaware River discharge criteria have not been
provided to date, the treatment in this alternative is assumed to
be the same as that described for Alternative 3. The final goal
of the alternative is to attain the published N.J.A.C. 7:9-6.6
(b) criteria, and the MCLs established pursuant to the Federal
and State Safe Drinking Water Acts in the aquifer at the end of
the remediation (Table 10).
The treated ground-water discharge for this alternative must meet
limitations derived by the N.J.A.C. 7:14A. The NJDEP in
conjunction with the Delaware River Basin Commission would
generate the discharge limitations for this alternative prior to
the Remedial Design.
The discharge from the treatment system would be pumped
approximately three miles north of the site to the Delaware
River. The route of a pipeline from the on-site treatment
facility would be westward along Route 44 to Route 322 and then
northerly to the river. The New Jersey Department of
Transportation would require the installation of a "carrier pipe"
to house the pipeline transmitting the treated ground water.
This pipeline may be sized for excess capacity to accommodate a
potential future treated ground-water flow from the Bridgeport
Rental and Oil Service Superfund site, if required. This would
allow for a combined resolution of the treated discharges from
the Chemical Leaman and Bridgeport Rental and Oil Services sites.
Property easements or procurements would be required, as well as
the approval of New Jersey Department of Transportation. In
addition, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
will issue a permit for discharge to the Delaware River. The
permit requirements will be developed by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection in accordance with the
16
-------
Delaware River Basin Commission requirements. The lower cost of
this alternative compared with the reinjection alternatives is
attributed to the lower costs associated with operating and
maintaining the pipeline versus the reinjection systems.
Pummnrv of Comparative Analvaia of Alternatives
In accordance with the National Contingency Plan, a detailed
analysis of each remedial alternative is conducted with respect
to each of nine detailed evaluation criteria. All selected
remedies must at least attain the Threshold Criteria. The
Selected Remedy should provide the best trade-offs among the
Primary Balancing Criteria. The Modifying Criteria were
evaluated following the public comment period.
Threshold Criteria
Overall Protectiveness of Human Health and the Environment -
This criterion evaluates the adequacy of protection that the
remedy provides while describing how risks are eliminated,
reduced or controlled through treatment, engineering
controls, and/or institutional controls.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements fARARs) - This criterion addresses whether a
remedy will meet all of the applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements of other Federal and State
environmental statutes and/or provide grounds for invoking a
waiver.
There a several types of ARARs: action-specific, chemical-
specific and location-specific. Action-specific ARARs are
technology or activity-specific requirements or limitations
related to various activities. Chemical-specific ARARs are
usually numerical values which establish the amount or
concentrations of a chemical that may be found in, or
discharged to, the ambient environment. Location-specific
requirements are restrictions placed on the concentrations
of hazardous substances or the conduct of activities solely
because they occur in a special location.
Primary Balancing Criteria
Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility or Volume - This criterion
addresses the anticipated treatment performance of the
remedy.
17
-------
Short-Term Effectiveness - This criterion addresses the
period of time required to achieve remedial goals and the
risks to human health and the environment during the
remedial action.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence - This criterion
evaluates the magnitude of residual risk and the ability of
the remedy*to maintain reliable protection of human health
and the environment over time once remedial goals have been
attained.
Implementability - This criterion examines the technical and
administrative feasibility of executing a remedy, including
the availability of materials and services needed to
implement the chosen solution.
Cost - This criterion includes the capital and operation and
maintenance costs of the remedy.
Modifying Criteria
State Acceptance - This criterion indicates whether, based
on its review of the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study, Risk Assessment, Feasibility Study Addendum and
Proposed Plan, the State of New Jersey concurs with,
opposes, or has no comment on the Selected Remedy.
Community Acceptance - This criterion evaluates the reaction
of the public to the remedial alternatives and EPA's
Proposed Plan. Comments received during the public comment
period and EPA's responses to those comments are summarized
in the Responsiveness Summary attached to this document.
Analysis
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 1 would not be protective of human health and the
environment since contaminants would remain in the aquifer and
continue to migrate uncontrolled through uncontaminated portions
of the aquifer. Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 would provide
adequate protection of human health by eliminating, reducing and
controlling risk through extraction and treatment of the ground
water and meeting respective discharge standards.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs)
Chemical-specific ARARs * The applicable requirements under
Federal and state environmental laws for ground-water remediation
within the aquifer at the site are contained in the promulgated
18
-------
portions of N.J.A.C. 7:9-6.6 (b) and the MCLs established
pursuant to the Federal and State Safe Drinking Water Acts (Table
10) .
With the exception of Alternative 1, each of the alternatives
incorporating ground-water treatment alternatives will attain the
environmental regulatory standards. Compliance of ground-water
treatment with applicable ARARs was assessed by qualitatively
comparing required effluent quality with the best estimate of
performance for each treatment option.
The contaminated ground water would be extracted and treatment
would continue until the MCLs, established pursuant to Federal
and State Safe Drinking Water Acts, and the New Jersey Water
Pollution Control Act, are met in the aquifer. Alternatives 2
and 5 discharge would meet New Jersey Pollution Discharge
Elimination System limitations for Moss Branch and the Delaware
River, respectively.
Location-specific ARARs - Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 may involve
construction within regulated land areas. As result, all
construction activities would have to comply with the Wetlands
Protection Act and the Floodplain Management Act.
Activity-specific ARARs - Construction of Alternatives 2,3,4
and 5 would be in compliance with State and Federal ARARs
governing the construction of the extraction/treatment/discharge
systems and the off-site treatment and/or disposal of waste
streams.
Lona-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 1 is not effective in the long or short term.
Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 would be effective in permanently
controlling and reducing the concentration of ground-water
contaminants migrating from the Chemical Leaman site once these
alternatives are implemented, and should maintain their
effectiveness for the expected duration of the remedial action.
The treatment and discharge components of the alternatives would
require maintenance to preserve their effectiveness. The
surface-water discharge alternatives would require less
maintenance than the ground-water injection alternatives.
Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
With the exception of Alternative 1, each alternative would
reduce toxicity, mobility or volume of the contamination in the
aquifer. The recovery of ground water for treatment would effect
a reduction in contaminant mobility by preventing further
19
-------
migration of the contaminants. The toxicity and volume of
contaminants in the ground water would be reduced via treatment,
although the extent of overall toxicity and volume reduction
would depend on the treatment process used.
Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 would all attain Federal and State
Safe Drinking Water Acts MCLs and N.J.A.C. 7:9-6.6 (b) in the
ground water at "the end of the remedial action.
Short-Term Effectiveness
During construction of the extraction and treatment systems, no
short-term reduction of contaminants in the ground water would be
afforded until system start-up and operation had commenced.
Since the extraction and treatment systems would be located in a
site area in which disturbance of soil during construction should
not increase site-related risk, construction should not be a
threat to Chemical Leaman's workers. Over the long term, the
ground-water extraction/treatment systems would significantly
reduce contaminant concentrations in the ground water. Each of
the treatment-based alternatives utilize air strippers. The
exhaust from these units would be directed to fume incinerators
or other systems (e.g., VPC or GAC) where organic compounds would
be destroyed or captured.
Short-term risks borne by the community and workers during
implementation of ground-water extraction and treatment systems
would be minimal, resulting from the transport of residuals off
site for disposal or further treatment (e.g., metals-containing
sludge and spent granulated activated carbon). In general, the
discharge alternatives would cause minimal short-term effects on
human health and the environment. The pipeline to the Delaware
River would run through some populated areas, which may cause
short-term disruptions to the community, such as construction
noise, presence of construction equipment and debris, and
construction dust. These construction related disruptions would
be short-term and minimized as much as possible.
with the exception of the No Action alternative, implementation
of each alternative is estimated to take approximately three
years. This time frame reflects a one-year pre-design period to
pilot the ground-water treatment and reinjection operations, a
one-year design phase, and a one-year period to construct the
treatment facility and pipelines or reinjection system.
Implementability
There is sufficient area on site for construction of the
extraction and treatment systems proposed. In general, the
technologies and equipment associated with treatment of the
ground water are reliable and have proven performance. Reverse
20
-------
osmosis (Alternative 2), however, has been less widely used than
the other technologies for long-term, full-scale applications and
would require intensive operation and maintenance. Pilot studies
would be required to define the ground-water treatment system's
design and operating parameters for Alternatives 2, 3,4 and 5.
The actual installation of the extraction and treatment systems
should not pose unusual problems, as the equipment for these
systems is commercially available.
The technologies and equipment associated with discharge to
surface water are reliable and have proven performance. These
surface water discharge alternatives should be easy to construct.
Construction of the pipeline to the Delaware River through flood-
prone areas or wetlands, however, may be complicated due to
permit requirements and restrictions by NJDEP. In addition,
approval of organizations which have authority over the Delaware
River and State highways would be required for the Delaware River
discharge alternative.
The technology for constructing and operating injection wells is
well known and, therefore, this discharge alternative should be
fully implementable. However, the presence of high iron
concentrations in the aquifer would promote the scaling and
clogging of the injection wells. An aggressive maintenance
program must be performed for these injection systems to operate
continually. Due to the uncertainties of the hydrogeological
setting and a high water table (Alternative 3), the reinjection
alternatives may be somewhat less reliable than the surface-
discharge alternatives. As a result, the reinjection
alternatives would require the conduct of a pilot study and
development of a three-dimensional model to confirm the
effectiveness of these alternatives prior to design.
Cost
The total present worth of the remedial alternatives are:
• Alternative 1: $300,000
• Alternative 2: $13,562,900
• Alternative 3: $12,024,000
• Alternative 4: $10,593,000
• Alternative 5: $5,412,000
The primary constituents of the Alternative 1 costs are sample
collection and analysis. Alternative 2 costs are primarily
attributed to ground-water treatment with 40 percent ($5,429,900)
of the costs associated with long-term operation and maintenance
of the reverse osmosis unit. Approximately thirty percent
($3,300,000) of Alternatives 3 and 4 costs are associated with
ground-water treatment. The remaining costs ($8,724,000 and
$7,293,000, respectively) are attributed to construction of the
reinjection systems and long-term operation and maintenance of
21
-------
the systems. The Alternative 5 costs consist of ground-water
system construction and treatment ($3,300,000) and operation and
maintenance of the pipeline ($2,112,000) to the Delaware River.
State Acceptance
Based on consideration of the criteria above and comments from
the public, the State of New Jersey concurs with the selection of
Alternative 5, Ground-Water Extraction, Treatment and Discharge
to the Delaware River. Alternative 5 was presented in the
Proposed Plan as the preferred alternative.
Community Acceptance
The objective of the community relations activities was to inform
the public about the work being performed at the site and to seek
input from the public on the remedy. Issues raised at the public
meeting and during the public comment period are addressed in the
Responsiveness Summary section of this Record of Decision.
Selected Remedy
After careful consideration of all reasonable alternatives, EPA
has selected Alternative 5: Ground-Water Extraction/ Treatment
and Discharge to the Delaware River for the Operable Unit One
remediation of the Chemical Leaman site. This alternative was
chosen because it would rely on well proven technologies to
remediate the contaminated ground water to attain Maximum
Contaminant Levels established pursuant to Federal and State Safe
Drinking Water Act and standards promulgated in N.J.A.C. 7:9-6.6
(b). The treated ground water would be discharged in accordance
with the N.J.A.C. 7:14A. The Selected Remedy is technically
implementable, will permanently reduce contaminant toxicity,
mobility and volume of contaminants in the aquifer, is cost-
effective, and will be protective of human health and the
environment.
This alternative will require the approval of the New Jersey
Department of Transportation, Delaware River Basin Commission and
local municipalities and authorities to transport and discharge
the treated ground water to the Delaware River. Rights-of-way,
easements and other off-site property access agreements must be
obtained during the conduct of the Operable Unit One Remedial
Design. In determining the specific route of the pipeline to the
Delaware River, EPA will consider minimizing adverse impacts to
the community. The present worth cost of Alternative 5 is
estimated at $5,420,000. The cost estimate for this alternative
may be revised to reflect the necessary treatment required to
22
-------
meet the N.J.A.C. 7:14A discharge limitations when they are
developed, and to include the cost of attaining easements and
permits for the pipeline. A detailed cost analysis is presented
in Table 12.
The Selected Remedy would appear to provide the best balance of
trade-offs among'the alternatives with respect to the criteria
that EPA uses to evaluate alternatives.
Additional studies will be required as part of the Remedial
Design and Remedial Action activities for the remediation of the
contaminated ground water. These studies include:
• Sampling and analysis of perimeter monitoring wells to
determine whether migration of contaminants since the last
round of sampling in 1989 has resulted in increased
contaminant concentrations further away from the source
areas.
• Delineation of the extent of the contaminant plume within
each of the ground-water subzones beneath the site and
obtaining additional information on aquifer characteristics
and local hydrogeology. Techniques for these purposes would
include, but would not limited to, ground-water flow
modeling, additional monitoring wells and aquifer pump
tests.
• Treatability studies to define the design and operating
parameters of the ground-water treatment system.
• A wetlands assessment to delineate impacts associated with
remedial activities.
• An assessment to delineate the boundary of the 500-year
floodplain in the area affected by the remedial action
(c.f., Executive Order 11988).
• A cultural resource assessment in compliance with the
National Historic Preservation Act.
• A determination to assure that the remedial action complies
with applicable regulations of the N.J. Coastal Management
Program.
• Pilot testing of initial extraction wells emplaced during
the remedial action to obtain more information on aquifer
response to ground-water extraction and to monitor the
effectiveness of the recovery system.
23
-------
• An emissions study to fulfill NJDEP permit equivalency
requirements and to develop contingency plans to reduce the
possibility of potential impacts on nearby residents and
Chemical Leaman employees caused by the operation of the air
stripper.
• Ongoing perimeter monitoring throughout the remedial action.
This monitoring program will minimize the potential for off-
site impacts. The program will include effluent monitoring
to assure compliance with discharge ARARs.
Statutory Determinations
EPA's selection of Alternative 5 complies with the requirements
of Section 121 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The alternative is protective of human health and the,
environment. It would achieve substantial risk reduction through
treatment of the of the contaminated ground water, the principal
threat to human health at the site. Cancer exposure levels would
be reduced to within the acceptable range of 10"4 to 10* and
hazard Indices for noncarcinogens will be reduced to less than
one. The implementation of the Selected Remedy will pose no
unacceptable risks to human health or the environment.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs)
The ARARs identified for the ground-water remediation are those
published in N.J.A.C. 7:9-6.6 (b) and the MCLs under both the
Federal and State Safe Drinking Water Acts. Alternative 5, at a
minimum, will achieve these required concentrations in the
aquifer by the end of the remedial action. The ground-water
extraction system will meet the requirements of the Water Supply
Management regulations, N.J.A.C. 7:19 et seq.
Air stripping will be done in conformance with state and federal
air emission standards. EPA will conduct a permit equivalency
process to fulfill the requirements of the promulgated NJDEP air
pollution regulations as provided in N.J.A.C. 7:27-8.1 et seq.
and N.J.A.C. 7:27-17.1 et seq.
The on-site implementation of the Operable Unit One remedy will
meet the requirements of laws and regulations regarding wetlands,
floodplains and stream encroachment.
24
-------
The treated ground-water discharge will meet all requirements
necessary for discharge into the Delaware River as provided in
the New Jersey Water Pollution Control Act regulations, N.J.A.C.
7:14A-1 et seq. as developed in conjunction with the Delaware
River Basin Commission requirements.
All off-site waste disposal will comply with the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq., as
amended, and will be consistant with the EPA's Off-site Policy.
The off-site implementation of the selected remedy will require
compliance with laws and regulations regarding wetlands,
floodplains and stream encroachment.
Cost-Effectiveness
The Selected Remedy is cost-effective since it achieves ground-
water remediation goals at approximately half the cost of the
other remedial alternatives considered.
Utilization of Permanent Solution and Alternative Treatment
to the Maximum Extent Practicable
Alternative 5 utilizes available treatment technologies to the
maximum extent necessary to provide a permanent solution to the
ground-water contamination problem at the Chemical Leaman site.
Its implementation will significantly reduce toxicity, mobility
and/or volume of the contaminants found in the ground water at
the Chemical Leaman site. The remedial action in Alternative 5
will provide both long-term and short-term effectiveness.
Furthermore, the alternative is implementable and cost-
effective. It provides the best balance of trade-offs among the
alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The Selected Remedy, which consists of extraction and treatment
of the contaminated ground water with discharge to the Delaware
River, is preferred because it addresses one of the principal
threats posed by the site, ground-water contamination, in a cost-
effective and efficient manner.
The Selected Remedy meets the statutory requirement to utilize
permanent solutions and treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable.
25
-------
There have been no significant changes in the selected ground-
water remedy from the preferred ground-water remedy described in
the Proposed Plan.
26
-------
11013
Figure 1
Chemical Leaman Site Location Map
• •«••• ^ri&v mm***rn**m*rm m iwiMf^ , ,- -^ f, . \i () V'.V \ -7
I 4 '' . • ' L' 11( i J • •/,' K«*|iaupo Slalihn ) .
;;i, •., , :«*nAH .;'.'. •'*WAHP; -~ '' \«J«!\ '• • ','/'
'i, • //•. >' • ' "p\ *•
-'-v.-vV/'" "' v./ V
y •••,•)/ \ ^,.../(
/^v^V-:-^1'1
XV '^ ' »
A ^A iV;_; .<
'"-^V, •//
\ '« \% /
"V- -; ^ - \(
' X '• • s I • \
*:. > x V-]" =-;
Scale in Feel
Source: U.S.G.S Topographic Quadrangle; Bridgeport. NJ PA
-------
Terminal
Building
Settling
Lagoons
\\v\
, , i , Frss^ie'Fcrm
[ I \ ff Secsni
wastewater
Holding Tank
Settling Tank
And Drum Storage Area
\ \( Seni;^; Lejoon
\ . \ ^ vv-r—.x v X^
Formtr Final
j I) Settling Lagocn
Formtr
Atration Lag
Chemical leaman Tank Lines Site Map
-------
Figure 3
Locations of Residential Wells in the Vicinity of the
Chemical Leaman Property Included in the Monthly
_EPA Monitoring
-------
Fiqure 4
Schematic Geologic Cross Section
Showing the Various Water Bearing Subzones Beneath the CLTL Site
i/O
Wiv.l
W.-ll Nr-.i
I
-- II .
Well Nrr.l
7
n
Wirll Mi-.l
li
Wirll Ner.l
Well Nesl
5
r.v.i
Moss Hi .inch/
Oil.if Sw.iuip
Siili/one .
40
CO
no
too
120 I
140
lljipce Inlwmedialc
Siilt/oiin
Iirtoiin«?•-•• r ^.'^^-1~~^— ~_1"-' • f _- '.—'?' —p ' - -p ™m • y ''-"?** | * "—'A -1J=;*^^^;j— f
Lower ln(pinirlK|i.iphy shown is pntl ol the lowor .iqiiilnr nl ll>n
I'otom.ic M.iiil.in M.iqolhy Aquilnr Sy.lom (W.ilhor. 190.1)
'Cl.iy Ihkh^^f s am apfNovim.ifo; son Plain I
ion n I on mo
Sc;il» HI 11ml
I -]'-•• \ Vaitegalcd lo ncdClay. Very Sli'l
I .T| O.iiklliownPeal
flniinri.tiy
-------
TABLE 1
Hazardous Materials Transported by
* Chemical Leaman Tank Lines/ Inc.
Al
2-
p-
Et
Ac
Ar.
Ee
r.-
Cr.
Cr.
Cr.
CJi
lyl alcohol
sec-Butyl-4 , 6 , -dinitrophenol
Chloroaniline
hyl enediar.ine
rylic Acid
il ine
r.zer.e
Butyl alcchcl
icrcbe-zene
lcrcethene
Crecscte
Crescis
Cresylic acid
Cu-e.-.e
Cycl cr.ex = r.e
rl-r.-Hutyl phthalate
1, 2-ricr.lorcber.2ene
Eir.e-r.ylar.ine
Di- = thylcarbar.cyl chloride
1 , 1-Ziret.hyl hydrazine
Eirethyi phthaiate
Tetrachicrc- ethane
Tcluer;edia-ine
Tcxaphene
1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane
Urethane
2,3-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-Octyl phthalate
Dipropylamine
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl acrylate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Formaldehyde
Forr.ic acid
Furfural
Hydrasine
Isobutyl alcohol
Kaleic anhydride
Kaleic hydrazine
Kethanol
Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)
Kethyl isobutyl ketone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Paraldehyde
Phenol
Phthalic anhydride
N-Propylamine
Pyridine
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
Toluene
Toluene diisocyanate
Tribromoine thane
Trichloroethene
Xylene
-------
TABLE 2
Chemical Leaman-Related
Ground-Water Contaminants
Detected in the Potomac-Raritan Aquifer
Shallc:-; Sub 2 one
Kethylene chloride
Chlorof orn
Benzene
Vinyl chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Ethylbenzene
1,1, 2-trichloroethane
1 , 2-dichlorcbenzene
1 , 4-dichlorobenzene
Di-n-butylphthalate
n-r.itrosodiphenylar.ine
2-chlcrcr.aphthaiene
bis(2-ethyihexyl) phthalate
Chlcroethane
End-sulfan 1
DDE
Arser.ic
Beryllium
Corcer
Trans-1,2-dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Toluene
1,2-dichloroethane
Chlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethene
1-2-dichloropropane
1,3-d i chlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Diethyl phthalate
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Phenols
2,4-dimethylphenol
Endosulfan sulfate
Heptachlor
DDT
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Subzcne
Kethvlene chloride
Benzene
Vinyl chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Ethylbenzene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,2-dichlcrcbenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Diethyl phthalate
Phenol
Di-ethyl phthalate
2,4-di-ethyiphenol
Trans-1,2-dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Toluene
1,2-dichloroethane
Chlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethene
Fluorotrichloromethane
1,3-dichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
n-nitrosodiphenylamine
Isophorone
Nitrobenzene
2,4-dichlorophenol
-------
TABLE 2 (continued)
Chemical Leaman-Related
Ground-Water Contaminants
Detected in the Potomac-Raritan Aquifer
Intermediate Subzone (continued)
4-nitrophenol
Alpha BHC
DDT
DDE
Antimony
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
2-nitrophenol
Delta BHC
Endosulfan 1
Arsenic
Beryllium
Copper
Mercury
Silver
Phenols
Peso Suhzone
Trsr.s-1, 2-dichlcroethene
Alpha EHC
Arsenic
Ccrper
Ksrcury
Zinc
Toluene
DDT
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Phenols
Residential Wells
Eer.zene
'1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichlcroethylene
Trar.s-1, 2-dichloroethylene
Tetrachlcrcethylene
Trichlcroethylene
2-tutancne
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,2-dichloropropane
Methylene chloride
Toluene
vinyl chloride
-------
TABLE 3
Summary of Major Contaminant Concentrations From the Ground-Water
Monitoring Wells
Contaminants • Maximum detected concentration (ppb)
Shallow Intermediate Deep
Volatile Oraanic Compounds
Trans-1 , 2-dichloroethene
Trichlcrcethene
Vinyl chloride
i 5 _ j •; ,-1. i ~, — ^-j.u-^,5
.X t ^>^.^d*_ ** ^ ^c _i.c.«c
Methylene chloride
Chlcrcf crr,
Ber.zene
Tetrachlcrcethens
Chlcrcber.zene
Toluene
Ser.i-volatile Oraanic Cor.counds
1, 2-dichlcrcbenzene
Naphthalene
Metals
Arsenic
Chror.ium
Lead
Zinc
15,000
1,100
8900
1400
20
4h A
30
290
830
600
310
410
2,500
190
690
650
68,500
69,000
4,800
5,200
1,200
100
M f\
20
300
160
200
200
1,800
520
1,230
100
3,500
5,840
20
—
—
—
--
—
—
—
40
—
—
—
60
—
—
-------
TABLE 4
Maxinura Priority Pollutant Concentrations Detected in Soil
Samples
Contaminant Concentration (ppm)
Volatile Organic Cor.pounds
Trichloroethene 290
Chlorobenzene 53
Ethylber.zene 17
Tetrachlcrcethene 16
Trans-1,2-dichlcrcethene 10
Toluene 9
Ser-.i-volatile Crnar.ic Cor.pounds
l,2-£ichlorcber.zene 220
Naphthalene 301 •
Bis(2-ethyl hexyl)phthalate 1,020
Butyl benzyl phthalate 639
N-nitrcsodiphenylardne 88
Metals
Lead 838
Arsenic 453
Cadr.iun 36
Zinc 1,320
-------
Table 5
Indicator Chemicals
nrniA
CMWND WATtR
|nh»llnw/lntrr-
•vuinnr* |
INDICATOR
Minn | Ifpil
UlNI.INtMtlOM
irr«»
lorn;
Tf lrhl<»ror»h^n^
I ••on-1.1 Hit 111 <>!<«• I hrne
Vlnrl thlnrlilr
Brnrrnr
I .I-lllrhlorolwnrene
At»rnlc
Zinc
I.l-Dlrhloroethane
t>. 'K»r •
n. «M»I <
1.711 <
ft.n%r.<
.nnr-fli
67C-01
GROUND
annum?)
Trlchloroetnrne
t ran<*-l. l-Dlrhloroethene
Vlnrl chlorine
•enrene
I,7-Dlchlnrohpntene
Af«rnlc
LPM!
line
I.2-Dlchlnroeth>ne
.cmr-fli
.far-Mi
I.
I.
0.
.9M-M1
cpnvND UATCH
Cllt Production
Trlchlnrorthme
t r«n«- I . }-Olrh|ororthrne
V|nrl chloride
Arnrnlc
Zinc
l.2-Plchloroeth>ne
6. inr. »i
Hot volatile
Hot volatile
Hot volatile
-------
Table 6
Rotrrr.s OP F.KPOSURP usr.n IN CALCULATION OP INTAKES
POPULATION
HOIIMS OP
DERMAL EXPOSURE
RotrTE.s OP
INHALATION INTAKE
ROUTF.S OP
INGESTION EXPOSURE
Ado It
o Denial contact with ground
water while bathing
Children ARC 2-6
o Denial contact with ground
water while liathlng
Children Age 6-12
o Denial contact with ground
water while bathing
Adult (worker*)
o Dermal contort with CLTI.
production well wnter while
rinsing trailers
o Volat 11 Izar Ion of compounds
Into the air from ground
water while bathing
o Volatilization of compounds
Into air from CLTL produc-
tion well during trailer
rinsing operation
o Volatilization of compounds
Into the air from ground
water while bathing
o Volatilization of compounds
Into air from CLTL produc-
tion well during trailer
rinsing operation
o Volatilization of compounds
Into the air from ground
writer while bathing
o Volatilization of compounds
Into air from CLTL produc-
I Ion well during trailer
rinsing operation
o Volatilization of compounds
Into nlr from CLTL produc-
tion well during trailer
rinsing operatIon
o Ingest Ion of ground
wnter as notable
water supply
o Ingest Ion of ground
water as potable
water supply
o Ingest Ion of ground
water as potable
water supply
Not ApplIcnble
-------
Table 7
Acceptable Intake for Subchronic Exposures (AIS) and Reference
Doses (RfD) for the Indicator Chemicals
(mg/kg/day)
Cher.ical AIS RfD
(nig/kg/day) (ngAg/day)
trar,s-l,2-Dichlcroethene 2.00 X 10'1 2.00 X 10'J
2.00 X 10' (1) 2.00 X 10'2 (1)
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 4.00 X 10'1 4.00 X 10's
9.00 X 10° (1) 9.00 X 10"1 (1)
Zinc 2.00 X 10' (1) 2.00 X 10'1 (1)
(1) Cral/cerr.al exposures
-------
Table 8
Carcinogenic Potency Factors (CPF) for Indicator Chemicals
l/(mg/kg/day)
Che-icals CPF
l/(ng/kg/day)
Inhalation Oral/Dermal
Trichloroethene 1.30 X 10-2 1.10 X 10'2
Vinyl Chloride 2.95 X 10'' 2.3 X 10°
Benzene 2.90 X 10': 2.90 X 10'2
Arsenic 5.00 X 10*' 1.80 X 10°
1,2-richlcroethane 9.10 X 10'2 9.10 X10-2
-------
Table 9
c»:::ic*s
Worker
&WURT OF THE I1SCS ASSOCIATE WITH
1NE CLTL IRlDCEPOfiT, «J TEtHlMAL
OESMIPTIO*
Sjieieot sir from the 8 "OUT* water from
the C.TL production veil uteri for
trailer rincinc.
rr from the shal low/
in:e-neciate t-C2one$ used for bathing
are drinking purposes
Cf3une>»Bter from the de*p sjbtone used
for bathing ane drinking purposes
Aneiert sir fren the g-ooncSiater froNi
the CLTL production veil used for
trailer rinsing (inhalation and denial
contact)
WEI5KTE:
CAR:I«XEII;: use
6£-07
tf-02
3E-Q4
1E-CU.
-:s^i£S Ex:.Xlk: DEE* CSXK2WATER
LIFETIME WEIGHTED
KO:AS:;KOCEN;;
KAZAR: IMOEX»»
Total 4.16£*01
MAZAR:
1.15E*C2
1,2-c-sMarotwnitn*
line
E»P:SJR£S TC DE:»
SUE2>E
tra-a-1,2-dichloro«th»ne
1 ,2-eieiiCroaenjene
5.53E-C1
3.09E-01
Total 9.93E-C2
4.06E-02
0
3.55E-C2
***
1.13E*00
1.17E«01
4.67E-01
2.80E-C2
C
4.39E-0:
Marker
t rans • 1 ,2-diehtero«then«
1,2-Ciehlerab»r.i»ne
UK:
2.90E-01
0
4. en-os
HA
NA
MA
HA
lci£ v»:.*« ind
-------
TABLE 10
Aquifer Restoration Criteria
Czr-z.-.z
Aldrir/Dieldrin
Ground Water
Quality*
fuc/li
ND
Ar- = r.:a ND
Arser.ic ar.d ccrpeunds 1230
Bariu- ND
Ber.zer.e 300
Ber.zidir.e ND
Eerylliur. 7
Eis ;2-6-.:-yl.w.€>:v:) phtJ-.alate 620
B-tyl te-.zyl pr.t^.alate 7EO
Ca=-:-_r er.d c-.rprur.ds ND
Carrrr. te-re r;-. 1 rrice ND
Clerical Cxy = gr. Der.ar.f 742,000
C.w.Itr = £r.e ND
c:-.l;r:i£-:er.e 600
Cr.lcr:ie ND
Cr.r;-:--- ar.: c:rrrur.is €50
Ccl;f:rr Bsrteria ND
Cclrr ND
Cczper 250
Crrrrsivity ND
Cvar.iie " ND
D" a-: rstarrlites ND
Dir-.tvl rr.tr.ala-e 30
r-f:rr.::r = ce-.:er.e 1SOO
p-c;cr. l:r:i:e-zer.e 40
c-::r:-.:=r = re-zer.e ND
1,2-::r:-.::rc£t-.ar.e 1400
1, :- = :=:-.: crret-.ere 20
1,1- = :::-.! rrret-.ylene ND
trar.s-1,2-
cichlcroethylene 69<000
2, <-d:r:-.:srcpher.cxyacetic
arid ND
1, 2-d;rr.icrcpropane 670
Ciethvl pi-.thalate 50
Diretr.yl pht^alate 20
Ethvlre-.zer.e ND
E.-.drs-lfar, 0.25
Er.drir. ND
Fluoride ND
fuo/11
0.003
500
50
1000
1
0.1
10
2
0.5
4
250,000
50
1 NTU
1000
Ncncorrcsive
200
0.001
600
75
600
2
2
10
100
0.1
0.004
2000
Source
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
3
3
1
3
1
1
1
3
3
2
2
2
3
1
3
-------
TABLE 10 (continued)
Aruifer Restoration Criteria
Fearing esents
Gross alp^a activity
Cross beta activity
Keptechlcr
Hvdrcrer, s^lfide
Ircn
Leac ar.c ccrrcur.ds
Linca-e
Kane* r. ess
Kerc-ry ar.c ccr.pcunds
Ke-.hcxycr.lcr
Ket-vler.e chlcride
Kar^t.w.aler.6
N i c X e 1
Nitrate- r.itrcoer.
Nitrcbe-zer.e
N-r.i
Cicr
he.-.iar.ine
Fher.rl
Pclyrr.l-rirste: biphenyls
Ka = : or.uclides
Faci'-r.
Seler. :-_T ar.c ccr.pcur.ds-
Silver ar.i ccrpcunds
Scciur.
Strer.tiur.
Sulfate
2,4,5-TF Silvex
Tetrachlcroethene
Tetrac.Mcroethylene
Toluene
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Karcr.ess as CeCOj
Total Crrar.ic Carbon
Tcxap.w.ene
Ground Water
Quality*
fuc/l>
KD
KD
KD
0.06
KD
186,000
3500
0.05
4400
KD
KD
100
2500
160
KD
70
1050
KD
KD
KD
KD
KD
KD
KD
KD
KD
KD
KD
KD
630
ND
KD
732,000
153,000
120,000
KD
Source
15
50
50
pci/1
PCi/1
50
300
15
0.2
50
2
100
2
13.4
10,000
^^— ^^^
3
3
3
3
3
6
5
3
3
3
2
2
.1
3
5-9
300
0.001
-
5 pCi/1
10
50
50,000
8 pCi/1
250,000
10
1
2000
500,000
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
1
3
1
3
2
3
1
0.005
-------
TABLE 10 (continued)
Aquifer Restoration Criteria
Ground Water
Quality' ARAR
Cerrourd fuo/H fuo/n Source
Trichlcrcber.rene KD 82
1,2,4-trichlcrobenzene 110
TricMcrcethene 4800 - •
Trichlcroethylene ND 1 2
Trih = lr-£thar.es ND 100 3
Tritiur ND 20 nCi/1 3
Turtiiity ND - 3
a,l(l-tr:=h:croethan* ND 26 2
Vinyl chlsrise . 8900 2 3
Xvlc.-.es ND 10 5
Zir.s er.i csrpcur.ss 68,500 5000 1
* X*>:irur crr.:e-.trat:cr; detected during the ZR.M investigation,
*• T.-.rrs:-.cl= C = :r Nur.ber.
A~J-.?. - A.rrlizsble cr relevant and appropriate re qua rement.
KD - r>z- = = -.6z*.e= during the ZR.X investigation.
NTV - J.'srr.slcretric Turbidity Unit.
pri/1 - p:c=rur:es per liter.
nCi/1 - r = T.rTur;es per liter.
CsC;;. - Cslciur carbonate.
1. N.J.A.C. 7:5-6.6(b).
2. N.J.A.C. 7:10-5, N.J.A.C. 7:10-7, A-280.
3. 40 C~?. 141, 40 CFR 143.
4. N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.15(«)2.
5. Proposed MCL; FR Volume 54; Published May 22, 1990.
6. USEPA Memorandum from Henry L. Longest and Bruce M. Diamond to
Patrick M. Tobin concerning Cleanup Level for Lead in Ground Water.
-------
I Of 3 f»HRI>H
TARLE I 1
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING RFOIIIRFMFNTS
CHEMICAL l.r.AMAN TANK I,INK.0. (Cl.TI.) •
Worelvinq f.I ream: Mor:s llrnnch
W.iler Cl.inr.if lent innt FW2-NT
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
Low Plow (7OIO): O.f. rlr.
nt will f;y;l»-m l>o;:jqn Flow: 0.44r> cfr, 17110,000 qp
-------
TARI.K I I (rout.)
POLLUTANT
r.rri.orNT LIMITATION:;
AVFIIA<;I: MAXIMUM
DI SOI A MCt:
COMPLIANCE
MONITOR INC.
FREQUENCY SAMPLE TYPE
VOLATILE OnC.AHtC
(lb/d)
Ch lorobenzenc* uq/1 (lb/d)
'hloroetbane, uq/1 (lb/d)
hlorofoim. uq/1 (lb/d)
,2-Olrhloroet hane, uq/1 (lb/d) 0
, l-nichloro*»ihylem», uq/1 (lb/d)
.7-ntrhloropropane, uq/1 (lb/d)
Ethylbenr.ene. uq/1 (lb/d)
Methy|one chloride, Uq/1 (lb/d)
Tetrachloroet.bylen**, uq/1
Toluene, uq/1 (lb/d)
t-1,2-nichloroethene, uq/1
1.1,2-TrIchlore*thane, uq/1 (lb/d)
Trlchloroethylene, uq/1 (lb/d)
Vinyl vrhlorlde, uq/1 I lb/d)
SEWI-VOLATILE ORGANIC
o.inr, (o.ooo447)
IN 10. OH,)
104 (0.7%)
7 (0.0 I (.9)
361 (0.000n67)
6 (0.0144)
53 (0.360)
32 (0.0769)
3 (0.00771)
0.5 (0.001?)
26 (0.0675)
21 (0.0504)
17 (0.040R)
1.5 (0.0036)
0.103 (0.000247)
o.i7i (o.onomr,)
?n /i)
?fthy Ihenyl Phthalate) ,
uq/1 (ll>/«1)
Isophorono, uq/1 (lb/d)
Nilrobenrene, uq/l (lb/d)
Phenol, uq/1 (lb/d)
77 (O.IR5)
31 (0.0745)
15 (0.036)
27 (0.0649)
Rl (0.195)
19 (0.0456)
1) 6.2 (0.0149)
1) 29 (0.069?)
N/A
2.2 (0.0052R)
N/A
15 (0.036)
15 (0.036)
163
44
2fl
57
203
47
X2.4
5R
R
4.4
30
30
26
(0.392)
(0. 106)
(0.0673)
(0.137)
(0.4RR)
(0.113)
(0.029R)
(0.119)
(0.019)
(0.0106)
(0.077)
(0.072)
(0.0625)
0.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.1R
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
Woofc ly
Woek ly
Wood ly
Work 1 y
Weekly
Woo My
Weekly
Weekly
Weokly
Wookly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Week 1 y
Weekly
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Gr<:b
Grab
Grab
Weekly
WoeKly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Week ly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Wookly
Weekly
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
r.r.ih
Grab
-------
TAHI.r. I I (< mil . )
l*«Rr J of I
POLLUTANT PAIIANFTFH
M I MM NT I, IH II AT ION::
AVFHAGF MAXIMUM
mr.<
rOMPl.lANCF
I.FVFI. m
Mhrnr>| , uq/1 (I !>/
T«»tal Nit rophonnln, uq/1 |lb/d)
lloptachlor, uq/l
PPT,
Fndofiul f«in, utj/1
DDE, uq/1
Ub/d)
uq/1
Nnphthnlon«», uq/1 Ob/d)
, uq/1 flb/d)
1«» (0.0017J
in ( n . o 1 1 ? i
f% (O.l%«.|
o.ono/f,
(O.nnooooft)
0.000 1 1
IO.OOOOOO7)
o.o ins
fO. 0000444)
0.00027
(0.000000%)
o.oo .us
(O.OOOOOR7)
22 (0.057R)
N/A
112 (0.?f,«M
if. (o.nnr.M
111 10. MSI
o.ooos?
lo.nnonni?)
O.OOOf.6
(o.ooonoisi
0.0171
(0.00001191)
0.00044
(0.000001)
0.00732
(0.0000175)
59 (0.147)
60 (0.144)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.9
0.012
N/A
0.004
0.003
N/A
N/A
WooUy
Wnok IY
WooMy
Work 1 y
Weekly
Weekly
Wfwk 1 y
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Grab
Cr.tb
Crah
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Chronic ToKlcitjr
NOEC 2 431 Mln.
N/A
Paqen 2 and
3 of 10 Paqes
NOFC •= No Observable effect Concentration
(1) Where specified, the Dlflcharqe Compliance Level (DC!.) shall be used for purposes of determlnlnq
dlncharqe compliance. When the averaqe and maximum effluent limitation*; are lean than the |)CL,
lljo dlncharqe must be lena than or equal to the nCL to lit? considered in compliance with both
Mmltationa. When only the averaqe limitation In lor.ft than tho DCL, the dlscharqe will he
considered in compliance with l»oth limitation* if it is In compliance with the maximum
effluent limitation.
I?) Required only when the Influent TOC is above 750 mq/l.
(II And no visible nheen.
supplied by N.TDKP.
-------
TABLE 12
Detailed Cost Estimate of
Alternative 5: Ground-Water Extraction/
Treatment and Discharge to the Delaware River
Iter. . Cost
Construction
Extract icr. /Treatnent Svster.
Extraction Wells, Cher.ical Precipitation, Air Stripping
(with Fure Incineration) , and Granular Activated Carbon,
Mobilization, Installation and Start-up,
Contingency, Engineering and Administrative Costs
Effluent Transfer Pur.p, Piping and Valves,
Mcriliz = ticr., Installation and Start-up,
Continrer. cv , Engineering and Administrative Costs _
Total Capital Cost 2,480,000
Annual Operation and Maintenance
Extr = " - or. Treatrer.t Svster.
Extraction v.'ells, Cher.ical Precipitation, Air Stripping
(vith Fure Incineration) , and Granular Activated Carbon
r i s ~ ~. = r - s S v s t e ~
Ensrry, :: = r.-Hcurs , Maintenance,
Total Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost 313,000
Present Worth Operation and Maintenance (30 Years)
Extract i r~ -Treatrsnt Svsten
Extraction v:=lls, Cher.ical Precipitation, Air Stripping
(vith 7urs Incineration) , and Granular Activated Carbon,
Contingency
Tischsrse Svster
Energy, r.'an-Hcur.s, Maintenance,
Contingenc
Total Present Worth Operation and Maintenance 2,940,000
Cost Sur-.ary
Total Capital Cost
Tctal Present Wcrth Operation and Kaintenanee _
Total Present Worth 5,420,000
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION - OPERABLE UNIT ONE
CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINES
I. Introduction -
The Chemical Leaman Tank Lines site, located in Logan Township,
New Jersey, consists of an active terminal used for the
dispatching, storage, maintenance and cleaning of tanker trucks
and trailers; fallow farmland adjacent to the terminal; and
wetlands bordering the terminal to the southeast. Past
wastewater handling and disposal practices at the facility have
resulted in organic and inorganic contamination of soil, ground
water and the adjacent wetlands. The site was placed on the
National Priorities List of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites in
1985. A Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study were
completed for the site in July 1990.
In accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) community relations policy and guidance and the public
participation requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, the EPA
Region II office established a public comment period from July
15, 1990 to August 14, 1990, to obtain comments on the Proposed
Plan for the site.
On July 24, 1990, EPA held a public meeting to receive public
ccr.r.ents on the Proposed Plan. Copies of the Proposed Plan were
distributed at the meeting and placed in the information
repositories for the site.
The Responsiveness Summary, required by the Superfund Law,
provides a summary of citizens' comments and concerns identified
and received during the public comment period, and EPA's
responses to those comments and concerns. Section II of this
document presents a summary of the significant questions and
comments expressed by the public at the public meeting in regard
to the proposed remedy selection. Each question or comment is
followed by EPA's response. It is noted that EPA received no
written comments regarding remedy selection during the public
comment period. All comments expressed to EPA were considered in
EPA's final decision for selecting the remedial alternative for
addressing the ground-water contamination.
Attached are three appendices. Appendix A contains the Proposed
Plan for the ground-water remedy. Appendix B contains the sign-
in sheet of attendees at the public meeting. Appendix C contains
the public notice issued to the Gloucester County Times, and
printed on July 13, 1990, announcing the public comment period
and availability of the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
:tudy an- the Proposed Plan for public review.
-------
II. Summary cf PubJ^g r»r>mn>ents and EPA Response
This section contains questions and comments expressed at the
July 24, 1990 public meeting.
1. A representative of tbe Gloucester County Health Department
asked whether a public water supply would be provided to a
residence where the well wa« contaminated with volatile
organics, and when that decision would be made.
EPA Response: During the public meeting, EPA indicated that
a referral had recently been made to EPA's Removal Action
Branch to evaluate extending the Bridgeport, water line to
affected or threatened residences south and vest of the
Chemical Leaman property. Subsequent to the public meeting,
an Action Memorandum was signed on August 29, 1990,
authorizing an additional four homes, which have
contaminated veil vater or may be threatened by the
contaminated ground-vater plume, to be connected to the
municipal vater line.
2. Several meeting attendees asked whether the proposed ground-
vater remediation for the Chemical Leaman site would be
similar to the one in operation at the Bridgeport Rental and
oil Services (BROS) facility and, if so, whether the sites
could utilize the same treatment facility and share costs.
EPA Response: The ground-vater remediation planned at the
Chemical Leaman site is a long-term effort, estimated to
take 30 years. Currently, at the BROS site, contaminated
rain vater in the lagoon is being vithdravn, treated and
discharged to a nearby stream. This effort is considered
short-term and vill end once all of the lagoon vater is
removed. The long-term remediation of the contaminated
ground vater at the BROS site vill not begin for several
years.
Although some of the contaminants affecting the sites are
similar, in general, the principal types of chemical
contaminants are different for each site. The contamination
at the BROS site is characterized as vaste oils and related
materials. At the Chemical Leaman site, the contamination
consists of a vide variety of organic and inorganic
substances. This contamination resulted from past
vastevater treatment/disposal activities at the facility
where vastevater vas generated from tanker-truck cleaning
operations. Distinct treatment processes, and hence
separate treatment facilities, would be required to
remediate effectively, the different types of contaminants
in the ground vater at each site. It is possible that
Che-ical Leaman and BROS may combine their treated ground-
-------
water discharge at some point in the future. That option
would be considered further as part of the long-term,
ground-water remediation for the BROS site. If such an
option is feasible, EPA would determine how to allocate
pipeline costs for the discharge between the two sites.
3. A resident asked whether the ground-water extraction
activities at the Chemical Learnan sit* could pull in
contamination from the BROS ait*.
EPA Response: Geologic studies have indicated that there is
a ground-water divide between the two sites. The natural
ground-water flows are in opposite directions. Also, in
designing ground-water extraction systems, an effort is made
to capture contaminated ground water efficiently and
minimize the quantity of clean or extraneous water
collected. Although the Chemical Leaman and BROS sites are
relatively near to each other (approximately 3000 feet
apart), they are not so close whereby the extraction of
ground water from one site would draw contaminated ground
water from the other site.
4. Several residents asked whether the treated ground water in
the pipeline could mix with the public water supply.
EPA Response: The water in the public water system pipeline
is under pressure, so if there were a leak in the water
supply line, water would escape from the pipe, rather then
other substances infiltrating the line. In addition, the
pipeline transmitting the treated ground water to the
Delaware River would be encased in a carrier pipe (in
accordance with New Jersey Department of Transportation
requirements) as a precaution to prevent any leakage or
release.
5. A resident asked why the treated water could cot be
transported to the Delaware River by trucks as opposed to a
pipeline.
EPA Response: Due to the estimated daily quantity (nearly
300,000 gallons) of water to be extracted, treated and
discharged, EPA believes that a pipeline is the most
reliable and effective means of transporting the treated
ground water. It is estimated that approximately 50 trucks
per day would otherwise be required.
6. Several meeting attendees were concerned about the proposed
route of the pipeline/ specifically, how Main Street in
Bridgeport might be affected/ since the roadway has been
recently refurbished and repaved.
EPA Response; EPA is aware that the community does not want
-------
Main Street excavated, as it has just been improved and
resurfaced. The proposed plan is to transport treated water
to the Delaware River via Route 44 and Route 322. As a
preliminary effort, in response to the local residents
concern, EPA tasked its contractor to identify alternative
routes for the pipeline. During the Remedial Design phase,
these and other routes will be explored in more detail. The
Record of Decision states that in determining the final
route of the pipeline to the Delaware River, EPA will
consider minimizing adverse impacts to the community. As is
customary at all Superfund sites, EPA will keep the public
informed of the progress of the remedial activities,
specifically regarding the determination of the pipeline
route, as well as other issues of interest. .
Two residents asked why/ as alternatives to the proposed
discharge route along Route 44 and Route 322, the treated
ground water could not be discharged to the Delaware River
either via a pipeline through Cedar Swamp, or directly
through natural drainage via Little Timber Creek.
EPA Response: The State would have some restrictions on
discharges through wetlands, especially since transporting
water through Cedar Swamp would be a potentially long-term
(30-year) disturbance to the wetlands.
The Delaware River has a greater assimilative capacity than
the Little Timber Creek because it is a much larger body of
water. The treated water would mix with the river water
more readily and have less of an impact, than if it were
discharged into the creek. The State has indicated that if
Little Timber Creek or other smaller streams were to be the
point of discharge, the treatment requirements would be more
stringent. These treatment requirements would result in
higher treatment costs, which would be similar to those for
Alternative 2 (Discharge to Moss Branch) in the Proposed
Plan. If a smaller stream other than the Delaware River
were to be used as the point of discharge, it would be most
practical to utilize Moss Branch, which is adjacent to the
site and, therefore, would not necessitate the need for a
pipeline of considerable length.
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
Superfund Program Proposed Plan-
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. Site
Logan Township, New Jersey
Region 2
-July 1990
EPA ANNOUNCES
PROPOSED PLAN
This Proposed Plan describes the preferred option
for remediating contaminated ground water origi-
nating from the Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.
(CLTL) site in Logan Township, New Jersey. This
document is issued by the United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA), the lead agency
for site activities, and the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), the support
agency. EPA, in consultation with NJDEP, will
select the final ground-water remedy for this site
only after the public comment period has ended and
information submitted during this time has been
reviewed and considered.
THE COMMUNITY'S ROLE
IN THE SELECTION PROCESS
EPA is issuing this Proposed Plan as pan of its
public participation responsibilities under Section
117(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthonzation Act of 1986. This proposed plan
summarizes information that can be found in greater
detail in the Remedial Investigation (RI) report,
Feasibility Study (FS), Feasibility Study Adden-
dum, Risk Assessment and other documents con-
tained in the administrative record file for this site.
EPA and NJDEP encourage the public to review
these documents in order to gain a more compre-
hensive understanding of the site and Superfund
activities that have been conducted there. The
administrative record file contains the information
upon which the selection of the response action will
be based. The file is available at the following
locations:
Logan Township Municipal Building
Township Clerk's Office
73 Main Street
Bridgeport, New Jersey 08014
(609) 467-3424
Hours: M-F: 8:30am-4:00pm
and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza, Room 2900A
New York, New York 10278
Hours: M-F: 9:OOam-S:OOpm
EPA, in consultation with the NJDEP, may modify
the preferred alternative or select another response
action presented in this Proposed Plan and the
Feasibility Study or Feasibility Study Addendum
based on new information or public comments.
Therefore, the public is encouraged to review and
comment on all of the alternatives identified in this
document.
DATES TO REMEMBER
July 15,1990 - August 14,1990
Public comment period for contaminated
ground-water preferred remedy
Tuesday July 24,1990
7:00pm • 9:00pm
Public meeting at:
Logan Township Municipal Building
73 Main Street
Bridgeport, New Jersey 08014
-------
O»l»w«r» Dlv«
(•pproi. 2 mil
" t
~>T
Ch*mic«l Lcaman Tank Lin*», Inc. Sit*
Logan Township, N«w J«rs*y
EPA solicits input from the community on the
cleanup methods proposed for each Superfund
response action. EPA has set a public comment
period from July 15, 1990 through August 14,
1990, to encourage public participation in the se-
lection of the contaminated ground-water remedy
for the CLTL site. The comment period includes a
public meeting at which EPA will discuss the RI,
Risk Assessment, FS, FS Addendum, Proposed
Plan, answer questions, and accept both oral and
written comments.
The public meeting for the CLTL site is scheduled
for July 24,1990, from "fcOOpm to 9:00pm, and will
be held at Logan Township Municipal Building, 73
Main Street, Bridgeport, New Jersey 08014.
Comments will be summarized and responses
provided in the Responsiveness Summary section
of the Record of Decision. The Record of Decision
will be the document that presents EPA's final
selection for the ground-water cleanup. To send
written comments or obtain further information,
contact:
Craig De Biase
Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza, Room 720
New York, New York 10278
All comments must be postmarked on or before
August 14,1990 for consideration of inclusion in
the Record of Decision Responsiveness Summary.
SITE BACKGROUND
The CLTL Bridgeport terminal is located in Logan
Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey, ap-
proximately two miles south of the Delaware River
and one mile east of the town of Bridgeport (see
Site Location Map). The site consists of an active
terminal used for the dispatching, storage, mainte-
nance and cleaning of tanker trucks and trailers;
fallow farmland adjacent to the terminal; and wet-
lands bordering the terminal to the southeast. The
CLTL terminal has been in operation since the
early 1960s. Past wastewatti handling and disposal
-------
practices at the CLTL site have resulted in organic
and inorganic contamination of soil, ground water
and the adjacent wetlands.
Prior to 1975, wastewater generated in the washing
and rinsing operations was impounded in a series of
seven unlined settling and/or aeration lagoons and
subsequently discharged to the adjacent wetlands.
In 1975, the lagoons were taken out of service when
CLTL was required to install a waste water contain-
ment system at the terminal. In 1977, liquid and
sludge in the settling lagoons were removed prior
to backfilling with clean fill and construction de-
bris. The aeration lagoons were drained, but no
lagoon materials were removed prior to backfilling.
In 1982, CLTL excavated visible sludge and con-
taminated soil from the former settling lagoons to
an approximate depth of twelve (12) feet below the
surface, and the excavation was backfilled with
clean sand.
In 1980-81, NJDEP documented volatile organic
contamination in the ground water beneath the
' CLTL site, as well as in neighboring private wells.
In 1981, CLTL conducted a hydrogeologic inves-
tigation to determine the extent of the ground-
water contamination. Twenty-five (25) monitor-
ing wells were installed, and between 1981 and
1983, these wells were sampled on a quarterly
basis.
In 1985, EPA included the CLTL site on the Na-
tional Priorities List of Superfund sites when it was
recognized that CLTL-related ground-water con-
tamination in a number of residential wells posed
an immediate threat to human health and the envi-
ronment. An Administrative Order on Consent
between EPA and CLTL was signed in July J985
pursuant to which CLTL agreed to conduct a
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/
FS) todelineate the nature and extent of site-related
contamination in the ground water, soils and sur-
face water at the CLTL site.
In June 1989, EPA determined that the draft RI/FS
documents prepared by CLTL were incomplete
and inappropriate for public release and for prepar-
ing a Record of Decision (ROD) for the CLTL site.
Consequently, EPA withdrew the studies from
CLTL on June 15, 1989, and proceeded to revise
the RI/FS and Risk Assessment documents unilat-
erally. EPA developed the FS Addendum to pres-
ent a more complete description of CLTL-related
contamination in the ground water and alternative
methods wfvch could be used to remediate the
ground water.
SUMMARY OF THE
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
The objectives of the RI were to: characterize the
nature and extent of contamination associated with
the CLTL site, identify off-site contamination and
its impact on the environmental and public health,
and determine the need for remedial measures to
mitigate the impact of the site on public health and
the environment. These objectives were met by ex-
amining all available information regarding the
CLTL site and by performing field investigations
to gather additional information.
The following tasks were accomplished during the
RI:
• Pre-existing geological, geophysical, hy-
drogeological and chemical information
were reviewed and evaluated;
• A hydrogeologic field investigation was
conducted which included: the installation
of 21 ground-water monitoring wells to
define the site geology; 4 water-level stud-
ies to determine the direction of ground
water flow; and an aquifer pump test to
define the hydrologic characteristics of the
aquifer and determine the effects of pump-
ing on ground-water flow beneath the site;
• Collection and analysis of ground-water
samples from on-site and off-site monitor-
ing wells and residential wells to character-
ize the nature and extent of ground-water
contamination;
• Collection and analysis of surface-water
and sediment samples from Moss Branch
and Cooper Lake; and,
• Collection of soil samples at various depths
from a total of 49 locations at the CLTL
site. The soil samples were collected to
assess the extent of soil contamination in
the vicinity of the lagoons, the lagoon
overflow area and the terminal truck park-
ing lot/driveway area.
The findings of the RI were:
• Analyses of vertical hydraulic gradients at
the CLTL site indicated a downward com-
ponent of ground-water flow;
-------
Ground-water sampling indicated that site-
related contaminants are concentrated in
the shallow and intermediate subzones. The
highest concentration of contaminants in
these subzones was detected in the vicinity
of the former waste water lagoons. Deep
subzone wells in other areas of the site have
detected elevated levels oif site-related
contaminants. Ground-water contaminants
include volatile and semi-volatile organic
compounds, as well as metals;
Solvents, including trichloroethene, trans-
1,2-dichloroethene, and other volatile or-
ganic compounds (VOCs), are the con-
taminants present at highest concentrations
in ground water. The VOC concentration
in the shallow subzone ranges from unde-
tectable levels to greater than 22,000 parts
per billion (ppb); the VOC concentration in
the intermediate subzone exceeds 75,000
ppb; VOCs detected in the deep subzone
include trans-1,2-dichloroethene (20,000
ppb) and toluene (40,000 ppb);
Metals concentrations in the shallow
subzone include chromium (1930 ppb),
copper (2060 ppb), cadmium (180 ppb),
arsenic (860 ppb), lead (1880 ppb), nickel
(1220 ppb) and zinc (9760). Metals con-
centrations in the intermediate subzone
include chromium (100 ppb), arsenic (165
ppb), lead (3500 ppb) and zinc (3300 ppb);
The extent of the contaminated ground-
water plume is estimated to be 1000 feet
long by 1000 feet wide in the shallow
subzone; 1100 feet long by 1700 feet wide
in the intermediate subzone; and 600 feet
long by 500 feet wide in the deep subzone;
Concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, cop-
per, lead, mercury and zinc were detected
above appropriate Ambient Water Quality
Criteria (AWQC) in Cedar Swamp. Con-
centrations of zinc exceeded AWQC in
Moss Branch and concentrations of zinc
and copper were observed to exceed AWQC
in Cooper Lake; and,
Results of the soil sampling indicate that
soil with concentrations of inorganic and
organic constituents above background
levels occurs in the vicinity of the lagoons,
in the overflow area east of the former
settling lagoons and at several locations in
the gravel truck parking lot/driveway area.
SCOPE AND ROLE
OF OPERABLE UNITS
As is the case with many Superfund sites, the
contamination at CLTL is complex and extensive;
it consists of a wide range of chemicals emanating
from several source areas. The contaminants are
present in soils, sludges, sediments, surface water
and ground water. The complexity of such a
situation necessitates addressing the contamina-
tion in discrete phases, referred to as operable units.
Ground water was selected as the first operable unit
of this multi-phase remedy because the nature and
extent of its contamination are better understood,
the remedy can be promptly implemented and it
will reduce the most significant risk to public
health, while alternatives for source remediation
are being evaluated! EPA's preferred alternative
for the first operable unit focuses on the remedia-
tion of ground-water contamination.
The second operable unit will focus on contamina-
tion in the former lagoon source areas. Since
available data obtained during the RI were limited,
EPA is currently conducting a supplemental as-
sessment in the former lagoon areas to define the
nature and extent of soils and sludge contamina-
tion. This information will be used to evaluate
appropriate alternatives for soil and sludge reme-
diation. EPA is planning to complete this effort
during the next year.
The third operable unit will address surface water
and sediment contamination in Cooper Lake, Moss
Branch and the wetlands adjacent to the site.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
An endangermem assessment was conducted by
EPA to determine the baseline risk attributable to
the ground-water contamination originating from
the CLTL site. The assessment began by selecting
indicator compounds which would be representa-
tive of the site risks. Then environmental fate and
transport mechanisms were evaluated for each of
the nine indicator compounds which were identi-
fied for the site. Several contaminated ground-
water exposure pathways were examined for resi-
dents living near CLTL:
1) Inhalation of volatilized compounds from
the contaminated ground water (i.e., CLTL
production well) during trailer rinsing op-
erations;
-------
2) Inhalation of and dermal contact with
CLTL-related ground-water contaminants
during bathing activities; and
3) Ingestion of CLTL-related ground-water
contaminants.
Lifetime-weighted carcinogenic and non-carcino-
genic risks are estimated by assuming that a poten-
tial residential ground-water user will ingest, in-
hale or come in contact with the ground-water
contaminants on a regular basis for 70 years.
The lifetime-weighted carcinogenic risk to resi-
dents using contaminated ground water is calcu-
lated to be 6 x 102. There are, however, no
residents currently utilizing contaminated ground
water which would result in a calculated risk of 6 x
102. This value exceeds EPA's acceptable levels.
Ingestion and inhalation of vinyl chloride and
ingesrion of arsenic detected in the ground water
generate most of the cancer risk. Long-term non-
carcinogenic risks are presented as a Hazard Index.
The Hazard Index to residents using contaminated
ground water is calculated to be 42. A Hazard
Index of greater than 1 is considered to exceed the
maximum recommended exposure.
Two exposure pathways were examined for CLTL
workers. These were inhalation of and dermal
contact with CLTL-related ground-water contami-
nants detected in the on-site production well during
trailer rinsing operations. The lifetime-weighted
cancer ri sk to workers due to contact with contami-
nants present in ground water from the CLTL
production well is 1 x 10"* assuming that no protec-
tive equipment is utilized by workers. Workers in
the truck-rinsing areas, however, use protective
equipment which would reduce this risk signifi-
cantly.
Both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks
associated with CLTL-related ground-water con-
taminants exceed EPA's recommended guidelines
for protection of human health. If remediation of
the ground water is not conducted, elevated car-
cinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks will remain
and further releases of contaminants into the sur-
rounding environment will occur. The proposed
remedy will achieve Maximum Contaminant Lev-
els, established pursuant to Federal and State Safe
Drinking Water Acts (i.e., drinking water stan-
dards), in the aquifer. Acceptable carcinogenic and
non-carcinogenic risks will be achieved as a result
of the implementation of the proposed remedy.
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
As pan of the FS process, numerous remedial
technologies were initially screened on the basis of
effectiveness, implementabiliry and cost. Follow-
ing the remedial technology screening, five ground-
water treatment alternatives and four treated ground-
water discharge alternatives were considered for
further evaluation.
This Proposed Plan presents the treatment and
discharge alternatives described in the FS report as
combined alternatives. The treatment and discharge
components of these alternatives are numbered to
correspond with the alternatives presented in the
FS report. It is noted that all of the alternatives,
with the exception of the No Action alternative,
include the same extraction well system design.
Alternative 1: No Action
Construction Cost: SO
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost: $30,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $300,000
Implementation Time: 30 years
The No Action alternative would consist only
ground-water monitoring. The operation a
maintenance (O&M) requirements include the labor
and analytical services needed to conduct quarterly
sampling of four on-site wells. A No Action
alternative is evaluated at every site to establish a
baseline for comparison.
Alternative 2: Ground-Water Extraction,
Treatment and Discharge to Moss Branch
Construction Cost: $3,289,400
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost: $876,100
Total Present Worth Cost: $13462,900
Implementation Time: 30 years
The extraction well network would consist of an
estimated seven recovery wells with a combined
pumping rate of 200 gallons per minute. Three
wells would be screened in the shallow subzone,
three in the upper intermediate subzone, and one in
the lower intermediate subzone.
The treatment system for this alternative is pre-
sented in the FS report as Treatment Alternative 1 5.
This alternative was specifically developed to
produce a treated effluent to meet the stringent
surface-water standards for discharge to Mossl
B-anch. The extracted ground water would be
pumped to a treatment system where chemical
-------
precipitation would be used to remove iron as well
as heavy metals. Next, the ground water would be
pumped through an air stripper to remove VOCs.
The stripper off-gas would pass through a fume
incinerator which would destroy the airborne VOCs.
The ground water leaving the stripper would be
pumped through a granulated activated carbon
(GAC) system to remove residual organic contami-
nants. Following this treatment, the water would
be passed through the reverse-osmosis (RO) unit to
remove dissolved solids or salts from the ground
water. The waste stream produced by the RO unit
would be sent off site for treatment.
Ground water treated on site would be discharged
to the Moss Branch at a rate of 288,000 gallons per
day via pumping or gravity flow (i.e., FS report
Discharge Alternative 1). Minimal piping, engi-
neering and construction would be necessary to
implement this alternative.
Alternative 3: Ground-Water Extraction,
Treatment and Reinjection into the Upper
Aquifer
Construction Cost: 51,731,000
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost: $992,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $12,024,000
Implementation Time: 30 years
The treatment component of this alternative is
presented as Treatment Alternative 8 in the FS
report. The treatment system in this alternative is
similar to the one described above for Alternative
2 with the exception that reverse osmosis would not
be utilized. Due to the shallow water table, treated
ground water would be reinjected into the upper
aquifer's deep subzone which occurs from 100 feet
to 150 feet below the ground surface. It is unlikely
that the ground water could be reinjected above the
deep subzone without the water short-circuiting to
the ground surface. It is envisioned that a reinjec-
tion gallery of six wells would be required, with a
combined pumping rate of 200 gallons per minute.
Prior to implementing this alternative, a reinjec-
tion-well pilot study would need to be conducted
and a three-dimensional mathematical model would
be developed to determine the effectiveness of this
alternative. Due to the high iron content of the
ground water, the reinjection system would require
an aggressive well maintenance program to control
scaling and clogging and ensure continuous opera-
tion. Each of the six wells would have a backup
well to permit continuous operation during mainte-
nance periods.
Alternative 4: Ground-Water Extraction,
Treatment and Injection into the Lower
(Brine) Aquifer
Construction Cost: $1,571,000
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost: $858,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $10,593,000
Estimated Implementation Time: 30 years
The treatment in this alternative is the same as that
described above for Alternative 3. The treated
ground water would be pumped into the brackish
(lower) aquifer located below the water table (upper)
aquifer at approximately 170 feet below the ground
surface. This aquifer is separated from the three
subzones of the upper aquifer by a regionally
extensive clay and silt layer approximately 30 feet
thick. The geophysical logs from deep wells in this
aquifer indicate that the aquifer is composed of
sands which could be suitable material for injec-
tion. An injection gallery of five wells (and five
backup wells for use during maintenance periods)
would be required, with a combined pumping rate
of 200 gallons per minute. Unlike in Alternative 3,
reinjected water surfacing above ground is not a
concern. Asa result, each of the Alternative 4 wells
could be operated at a higher pumping rate result-
ing in the need for one less well than would be
required for Alternative 3. This alternative would
also require an aggressive well maintenance sched-
ule as described in Alternative 3. The difference in
costs between Alternatives 3 and 4 is attributed to
the difference in the number of reinjection wells
and the associated costs of long-term operation and
maintenance of these wells.
Alternative 5: Ground-Water Extraction,
Treatment and Discharge to the Delaware
River
Construction Cost: $2,480,000
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost: $320,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $5,420,000
Implementation Time: 30 years
The treatment in this alternative is assumed to be
the same as that described for Alternative 3, al-
though N JDEP has not completed the development
of the applicable or relevant and appropriate re-
quirements (ARARs) for the Delaware River. The
discharge from the treatment system would be
pumped approximately 3 miles north of the CLTL
site to the Delaware River. The route of a pipeline
from the on-site treatment facility would be west-
ward along Route 44 to Route 322 and then north-
erly to the river. The New Jersey Department of
Transportation (NJDOT) would require the instal-
-------
lation of a "carrier pipe" to house the pipeline
transmitting the treated ground water. This pipe-
line may be sized for excess capacity to accommo-
date a potential future treated ground-water flow
from the Bridgeport Rental and Oil Service (BROS)
Superfund site, if required. This would allow for a
combined resolution of the discharges from the
CLTL and BROS sites. Property easements or
procurements would be required, as well as the
approval of N JDOT and the Delaware River Basin
Commission (DRBC). The lower cost of this
alternative compared with the reinjection alterna-
tives is attributed to the lower costs associated with
operating and maintaining the pipeline versus the
reinjection system.
As described above, the series of treatment proc-
esses which EPA is proposing for ground-water
remediation consists of metals precipitation, air
stripping and granulated activated carbon. These
technologies have traditionally proven to be effec-
tive in removing the types of contaminants present
in the ground water. The FS report also discusses
in detail two other treatment alternatives, namely
Treatment Alternative 10: Extraction Wells;
Ground-Water Treatment by Chemical Precipita-
tion and Ultraviolet (UV)/Peroxidation and Treat-
ment Alternative 12: Extraction Wells; Ground-
Water Treatment by Chemical Precipitation, Air
Stripping with Fume Incineration, and UV/Peroxi-
dation. EPA is not proposing UV/peroxidarion
processes as a pan of the treatment scenario as they
have been less widely used than the other technolo-
gies. It is noted that during the first operable unit
Remedial Design (the next phase in the remedial
process), pilot studies will be conducted to deter-
mine the specific unit treatment processes required
and define the operating parameters of the treat-
ment system.
EVALUATION OF
ALTERNATIVES
After careful consideration of all reasonable alter-
natives, EPA proposes utilizing the following al-
ternatives for the remedial action for the CLTL site.
The preferred alternative for cleanup of the ground
water at the CLTL site is Alternative 5: Ground*
Water Extraction, Treatment and Discharge to
the Delaware River. This alternative was chosen
because it would rely on well-proven technologies
to remediate the contaminated ground water to
attain Maximum Contaminant Levels established
pursuant to the Federal and State Safe Drinking
Water Acts and standards promulgated in N.J.A.C.
7:9-6.6(b). The treated ground water would be dis-
charged in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:14A (New
Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination System).
The preferred alternative is technically imple-
mentable and will permanently reduce contami-
nant toxicity, mobility and volume of contaminants
in the aquifer. This alternative will require the
approval of NJDOT, DRBC and local municipali-
ties to transport and discharge the treated ground
water to the Delaware River. The total cost of
Alternative 5 is estimated at $5,420,000. The cost
estimate for this alternative may be revised to
reflect the necessary treatment required to meet the
ARARs when they are developed.
The preferred alternative would appear to provide
the best balance of trade-offs among the alterna-
tives with respect to the criteria that EPA uses to
evaluate alternatives. This section profiles the
performance of the preferred alternative against the
criteria which apply to this remedial action, noting
how it compares to the other options under consid-
eration.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment: This criterion addresses whether an
alternative provides adequate protection of human
health and the environment and describes how
risks posed by the contaminated ground water are
eliminated, reduced or controlled through treat-
ment, engineering controls or institutional con-
trols.
Alternative 1 would not be protective of human
health and the environment since contaminants
would remain in the aquifer and continue to mi-
grate into uncontaminated portions of the aquifer.
Alternatives 2,3,4 and 5 would provide adequate
protection of human health by eliminating, reduc-
ing and controlling risk through extraction and
treatment of the ground water and meeting respec-
tive discharge standards.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements fARARO: This crite-
rion addresses whether an alternative will meet
ARARs under Federal and State environmental
laws and/or provides a justification for a waiver.
There a several types of ARARs: action-specific,
chemical-specific and location-specific. Action-
specific ARARs are technology or activity-spe-
cific requirements or limitations related to various
activities. Chemical-specific ARARs are usually
numerical values which establish the amount or
concentration of a chemical that may be found in
or discharged to, the ambient environment. Loca-
tion-specific requirements are restrictions placed
-------
on the concentrations of hazardous substances or
the conduct of activities solely because they occur
in a speciaJ location.
With the exception of Alternative 1, each of the
alternatives incorporating ground-water treatment
alternatives will attain specific environmental
regulatory standards. Compliance of ground-Wa-
ter treatment with applicable ARARs was assessed
by qualitatively comparing required effluent qual-
ity with the best estimate of performance for each
treatment option.
The contaminated ground-water would be extracted
and treatment would continue until the Maximum
Contaminant Levels, established pursuant to Fed-
eral and State Safe Drinking Water Acts, and the
New Jersey Water Pollution Control Act, were met
in the aquifer.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence: This
criterion refers to expected residual risk and the
ability of the alternative to maintain reliable pro-
tection of human health and the environment over
time, once cleanup goals have been met.
Alternative 1 is not effective in the long or short
term. Alternatives 2, 3,4 and 5 will be effective in
permanently controlling and reducing the concen-
tration of contaminants migrating from the CLTL
site once these alternatives are implemented, and
should maintain their effectiveness for the ex-
pected duration of the remedial action. The treat-
ment and discharge components of the alternatives
will require maintenance to preserve their effec-
tiveness. The surface-water discharge alternatives
will require less maintenance than the ground-
water injection discharge alternatives.
Reduction ofToxicitv. Mobility or Volume Through
Treatment: This criterion evaluates the anticipated
performance of the treatment technologies an alter-
native may employ.
With the exception of Alternative 1, each alterna-
tive would reduce toxicity, mobility or volume of
the contamination in the aquifer. The recovery of
ground water for treatment would effect a reduc-
tion in contaminant mobility by preventing further
migration of the contaminants. The toxicity and
volume of contaminants in the ground water would
be reduced via treatment, although the extent of
overall toxicity and volume reduction would de-
pend on the treatment process used.
Shon-Term Effectiveness: This criterion 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 con-
struction and implementation period, until reme-
dial goals are met
During construction of the extraction and treatment
systems, no short-term reduction of contaminants
in the ground water would be afforded until system
start-up and operation had commenced. Since the
extraction and treatment systems would be located
in a site area in which disturbance of soil during
construction should not increase site-related risk,
construction should not be a threat to site workers.
Over the long term, the ground-water extraction/
treatment systems would significantly reduce
contaminant concentrations in the ground water.
Each of the treatment-based alternatives utilize air
strippers. The exhaust from these units would be
directed to fume incinerators where organic com-
pounds would be destroyed.
Short-term risks borne by the community and
workers during implementation of ground-water
remedial measures would be minimal, resulting
from the transport of residuals off site for disposal
or further treatment (e.g., metals-containing sludge
and spent granulated activated carbon). All of the
discharge alternatives should cause minimal short-
term effects on human health and the environment.
With the exception of the No Action alternative,
implementation of each alternative is estimated to
take approximately three years. This time frame
reflects a one-year predesign period to pilot the
ground-water treatment and reinjection operations,
a one-year design phase and a one-year period to
construct the treatment facility and pipelines or
reinjection system.
Implementabiliry: This criterion evaluates the
technical and administrative feasibility of an alter-
native, including the availability of materials and
services needed to implement a particular technol-
ogy.
There is sufficient area on site for construction of
the extraction and treatment systems proposed.
Pilot studies would be required todefine the ground-
water treatment system's design and operating
parameters. The actual installation of the extrac-
tion and treatment systems should not pose unusual
problems, as the equipment for these systems is
commercially available.
The technologies and equipment associated with
surface-water discharges are reliable and have
proven performance. These surface-water dis-
-------
charge alternatives should be easy to construct
Approval of organizations which have authority
over the Delaware River and State highways must
be obtained for the Delaware River discharge alter-
native. The technology for constructing and oper-
ating injection wells is well-known and, therefore,
this discharge alternative should be fully imple-
mentable. However, the presence of high iron
concentrations in the aquifer would promote, the
scaling and clogging of the injection wells. An
aggressive maintenance program must be performed
for these injection systems to operate continually.
Due to the uncertainties of the hydrogeological
setting, the reinjection alternatives may be some-
what less reliable than the surface-discharge alter-
natives. As a result, the reinjection alternatives
would require the conduct of a pilot study and
development of a three-dimensional model to
confirm the effectiveness of these alternatives prior
to design. As stated above, with the exception of
the No Action alternative, all alternatives are esti-
mated to take approximately three years to imple-
ment.
Cost: Includes estimated construction, and opera-
tion and maintenance costs, also expressed as net
present worth costs.
The total present worth of the remedial alternatives
are:
Alternative 1:
Alternative 2:
Alternative 3:
Alternative 4:
Alternative 5:
$300,000
$13,562.900
$12,024,000
$10,593,000
$5,412,000
The primary constituents of the Alternative 1 costs
are sample collection and analysis. Alternative 2
costs are primarily attributed to ground-water treat-
ment with 40 percent ($5,429,900) of the costs
associated with long-term operation and mainte-
nance of the reverse osmosis unit. Approximately
30 percent ($3,300,000) of the Alternative 3 and 4
costs are associated with ground-water treatment.
The remaining costs ($8,724,000 and $7,293,000,
respectively) are attributed to construction of the
reinjection systems and long-term operation and
maintenance of the systems. The Alternative 5
costs consist of ground-water treatment
($3,300,000) and construction and operation and
maintenance of the pipeline ($2,112,000) to the
Delaware River.
State Acceptance- Indicates whether, based on its
review of the RI/FS, Risk Assessment, FS Adden-
dum and Proposed Plan, the State of New Jersey
concurs with, opposes, or has no comment on the
preferred alternative. The N JDEP concurs with the
Proposed Plan.
Community Acceptance: Will be addressed in the
Responsiveness Summary section of the Record of
Decision following a review of the RI, FS, Risk
Assessment, FS Addendum and Proposed Plan.
SUMMARY OF
THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
In summary. Alternative 5 would achieve substan-
tial risk reduction through treatment of contami-
nated ground water at the site. The extraction and
treatment systems are expected to meet the cleanup
goals for the ground water for aquifer restoration.
The discharge to the Delaware River is more cost
effective and easier to implement than Alternatives
2, 3 and 4. Therefore, the preferred alternative is
believed to provide the best balance of trade-offs
among alternatives with respect to the evaluation
criteria. Based on the information available at this
time, EPA believes the preferred alternative would
be protective of human health and the environment,
would comply with ARARs, would be cost effec-
tive, and would utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable.
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
FOR
Chenical Leaman Site
Loqan Township
JULY 24 , 1990
ATTENDEES
(Please Print)
NAME
CITY
ZIP
PHONE
REPRESENTING
MAILING
LIST
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
PUBLIC INFORAMTION MEETING
FOR
Che*leal Leaman Site
Logan Township
JULY 24 , 1990
ATTENDEES
(Please Print)
NAME
STREET
CITY
ZIP
fUl
PHONE
REPRESENTING
MAILING
LIST
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
THE UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
INVITES
PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE
PROPOSED REMEDY FOR
THE CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINES, INC. STTE
LOCATED IN
LOGAN TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY
The United S*.aes Environmertal Protectbn Agency (EPA), as lead agency (or tht Chemca! lea/nan Tank
lines. Inc. (CLTL) sie . »•;:: NoW a Public Meeting to dscuss the Remediarinvestigation/Feasibilrty Study (RVPS)
and in e Po;cs«<5 Pian lor a firs'.-phas« Remedy £ the tilt. The New Jersey Department erf Environmental
Prc; aeon (SJDEri. as ^e supoonaaency. will also bs in a2»nd*ncB. The meeting will be held on July 2*. 1MO.
m 7 JX p.m. in the L&jai Towr.ship Munejpaf Building. 73 Main Street, Bridg«pon. New Jtrwy.
Among tse opio.-$ eva!ja'.»d for addressing eomaminatad ground walar at tha *ft« ar» th* foftowtng:
1. No Action. Ths aSemative would consist on^ cK ground watar monlonng.
2. Grsaid Waie- En-a^on. TieaRmem. and Oischa^a to Moss B/aneh. Undar this ahamatrya, tha
cc-r.amir.£e< g-c.-xi waie- would ba attracted and ueaiad using air-stripping. eSamicaJ p;acrpriitjen.
g-3.-;'ja'.e; ar.iva'.ei ca.'bon, and ravar«a osmosis. Tha ground watar would ba taitad on ska and
c.s;-.a-^9d to tk,e Mess Branch.
3. Go jii Waier Exn^on, Trea'.mtni. and Rainjkdbft imo tha Upp«r Aquifer. This atternaliva is simHar to
A?.».T,a::««2, wr.w, frie exse^.bn thai reverse osmosis would not bauti&zad. The treated ground watar would
be r«:*.,er,e< ;-'.: the upper aquifer.
4. G-a."^ Wa*.e'Er*arbon, Tiea'Tient. and Injaclbn into the Lower Aqurler. Thii aJlernalrve is the same ts
Aierr.a-.-^s 3. ei^p: thr. the treated g.>ojnc water would be pumped into the lower (braeXisn) aquifer.
5. Gn^.*^ v.'a'e- Er-artion. Trea'.mert. and Dis^a/je to the Delxware River. This altemattv* ACX-. a'e'-.stvs was evaluated as required by the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Plan.
or. a>-a'abie L-nwr.ation. the pr cposed frti-phasa Remedy r, this time is Aflematrve 5. EPA proposes
f-.a' t*-.^ Re~.etf> »7' be rncs1. p-o'.ecwe of human hea-lh and Ihe environmen',. as well as be mosi cost eWedrve.
EPA *friccTes the pub:c's corr.nents on the Admirvsrative Record and ai: aternaiives identf*d above. EPA
; cNsrse ^ e r.-s'.-?k.as« Rene>y after the pub!c comment period ends and eonsutialbn with NJDEP is
i: x:&c E~A r.ay se'e-r*. ar> op'.cn other than the proposed alternative after consideral'on c* af> comments
recevei Cc-:'s-e Crc-jTe-.'a'.cn of the pfOj»a findings is presented in the Administra'.ive Record File, which
ccrra:-.sfe P.CS PcSC-.sa-^thsPropeied Plan. These documents are available at ehherthe Logan Township
Mj-Jcapa! B.Xrr^ o/ EPA's Regbr, II o^fee in New YortL
The pobKc rr. ?y Gon-.srr. ir person it the pubic meeting and/or may submit written commanis until AugusJ 14,
CntaOaBiaM
Remedial Project Manager
Emergtrwy and Remedial Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Fvdera! Plaza
New York, New York 10271
-------
is-rsx or DocT-yrKT
g = ~'
-------
gj-
Report: Kyrfregg^loyir Tnvag* icst i^n
Water Cor.taminstisr. at the Cherries.! L..
Tank Lines gridoeper* Facility, prepared by
Mr. Paul Gruber, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., 9/8/81. References are
listed on P.
P. 426-443 New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection Inspection Form, 4/26/83.
X=: = r: P.ar.xirg gysterr. Package Ir.ferffiatien
P. 444-44= Hazard Rankinc System Package Information,
6/2S/S3. . •
Documentation Records fcr Hazard Rar.kinc
System, 6/25/63.
8 Letter to Dr. Samuel I. Roter.berg, U.S. EPA,
from Mr. Bruce J. Kartmann, Chemical Leamar.
Tank lines, Inc., re: Classification of tar.k
clearing rinse waters, 12/18/81. A Source cf
Water Generation repcrt and several water
analyses are attached.
?. 4 = =-4=: letter to U.S. EPA from Mr. Richard C.
Littlepage, Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.,
re: Classification- cf tank cleaning rinse
waters, 1/29/62.
?. 4S1 Letter to Mr. Richard C. Littlepage, Chemical
Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., from Ms. Janet
DeSiasio, U.S. EPA, re: Deletion of hazardous
wastes, 2/8/82.
P. 452-453 Letter to Mr. Peter L. Agresti, Chemical
Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., from Mr. Conrad
Simon, U.S. EPA, re: Request for submission
of Fart B of the Permit Application, 8/24/82.
P. 454-4=6 Letter to Mr. Lawrence Miller, New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, from
Mr. Bruce J. Kartmar.n, Chemical Leaman Tank
• Lines, Inc., re: Report on findings during
excavation cf steel sump area, 9/15/82. A
sketch cf setting tank/sump area is attached.
-------
457-5C6 Letter to U.S. EPA from Mr. Richard C.
Littiepage, Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.,
re: Request for permission to withdrawal
submission of the Part B Permit Application,
2/5/63. The Application is attached.
-Performance Evaluation of Pump-and Treat
Rem.ediatior.s, prepared by Mr. Joseph F. Kelly,
U.S. EPA, 10/89.
Ar. a lsis Data/Chain of Cus*orf
P. 52£-££2 Letter to Mr. Rudolph M. Schuller,
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., from
Mr. John E. La Psdula, U.S. EPA, re:
Residential well data, 8/20/66. The data is
attached.
P. ££2-££5 Memorandum to Ms. Carol Price, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Ron Bcrsellino, U.S. EPA, re: Bridgeport
Rental and Oil Services crivate well samrlinc
program, 1/5/67.
S r~ ~ 1 i r. ~ =,.-.! A.". 51 s i g Plans
?!»--.. prepared by Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., 2/6/61.
Report : Overview ef Grrxir.d Water Veri*prir.c
srd Recommended Additional Hyeroceolocie
Investigations at the Bridgeport Terminal.
prepared by Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., 3/13/84.
P. 6S2-714 Letter to Mr. Scott Graber, Camp Dresser and
McXee Inc., from Mr. David J. Keil, Camp
Dresser and McKee Inc., re: Evaluation of the
Total Excavation Alternative and Supplemental
Scils Sampling Flan, 6/19/65. The plan is
attached.
-------
"15-726 Letter to Mr. Lance Miller, New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, from
Mr. Richard C. Littlepage, Chemical Leaman
Tank Lines, Inc., re: Revisions to the Hydro-
- Geological Report, 12/28/81. The revised
pages are attached.
727-571 Memorandum to File from Mr. Christopher G.
Schiller, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, re: Sampling by DDK
[sic], 7/20/82. The data is attached.
Memorandum to Mr. Ron Borsellino, U.S. EPA,
from Ms. Carol Price, U.S. EPA, re: Monthly
trend reports, 1/9/86.
£51 Repcrt : Tr<-yg»r.ig Aralyseg Da*a Package.
prepared by California Analytical
Laboratories, Inc., 5/1/86.
532-Erj Record of Communication to Mr. John Birri from
Ms. Sharon Steltz re: CLP Inorganic Data
Packages for QA Review, 5/6/88.
=5:-=r2 Memcrar.dur. to Mr. Ron Eorsellino, U.S. EPA,
from Ms. Carol Prince, U.S. EPA, re:
Bridgeport Rental & Oil Services Private Well
Sampling Program, 5/8/86. The data sheets are
attached.
Sr^-rlr Memorandum to Mr. John LaPaciula, U.S. EPA,
from Ms. Regina Mulcahy, U.S. EPA, re:
Reviewed CLP Data, 6/6/86. The data is
attached.
92C-25CC Report: Chemical Analysis Data Package for
M^ritered Grour.dwater Wells. 3/1B/66 -
" ill /gg. prepared by Lancaster Laboratories,
Inc., for Environmental Resources Management.
25! 1-25 C2 Memorandum to Mr. Don Lynch, U.S. EPA, from
Ms. Carol Price, U.S. EPA, re: Data and
monthly trend reports, 2/19/87.
Letter to Mr. Frederick Luckey, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Gary J. Barton, U.S. Department of the
Interior, re: Seismic refraction data,
2/13/57. The data is attached.
-------
F. 2504-2525 Report: Peg-.: It g ef 24 >!eur Water Level
prepared by Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., 8/67.
F. 2527-2£C1 Field Notes, Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.,
.11/10/87 - 11/21/87. The data is attached.
?. 2527-2£Cr Memorandum to Ms. Dawn Tharr, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, from Chemist
[sic] re: Analysis of charcoal tubes, 5/5/8S.
The data is attached.
?. 2610-2669 Field Notes, Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.,
3/10/68 - 4/24/88. The data is attached.
F. 2£T2-2~l£ Report: Teehrieal Review of Gro^r.d-Wat.gr
levels ir. the Revised Draft Repert. prepared
bv Environmental Resources Management, Inc.,
6/7/68.
F. 2~17-2i:2 Letter to Mr. Frank Messina, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. David R. Blye, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., and Mr. Ronald A. Landon,
Er.vircr.ner.tal Resources Management, Inc., re:
CA/CC cf data for the Remedial Investigation
and Remedial Action reports, 6/16/88. The
report is attached.
Transr.ittal letter to Ms. Rose Karvell, U.S.
EFA, from Mr. Bob Goltz, Camp, Dresser & McK.ee
Inc.-Federal Programs Corporation, re:
Technical oversight of the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study, 6/24/88. The
report is attached.
Letter to Mr. Frederick J. Luckey, U.S. EPA,
from Mr. Edward A. Kaiser, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, re: Monitoring
results, 5/19/88. The results are attached.
Memorandum to Mr. Tom Uzzo, U.S. EPA, from Ms.
Carol Diguardia, U.S. EPA, re: Labuda well
sample, 6/2/8S. The data sheet is attached.
F. 317= - 2225 Appendix re: Groundwater quality in Logan
Township, (undated).
F. 22 4 C Map: Environmental Sampling Locations Map,
Plate 1, (undated).
F. :-241 Ma?: Conductivity Survey, March 16-17, 1965,
Flate 2, (undated).
-------
Map: Conductivity Survey, March 16-17, 1SSS,
Plate 3, (undated).
Map: Location of Groundwater Monitoring Wells
of the Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. Site,
- Plate 4, (undated).
?. 2244 Map: Fence Diagram Using Selected Monitoring
Wells at the Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.
Site, Plate 5, (undated).
?. 5245 . Map: Location of Well Points and Surface
Water and Sediment Samples Collected from the
Wetlands in the vicinity of the Chemical
Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. Site, Plate 6,
(undated).
Repcrt: Wcr< Plan for Additional Well
Ingta 11sticr. at *he Chemical Leaman Tank
lireg. Inc. Terminal. Bridgeport. New Jersey.
prepared by Environmental Resources
Management" Inc., 10/12/87.
Repcrt: Oversight Reperr Comments en
gupp' er*ert si Wcrk Plan. Chemical Leamar. TanJc
Lir.eg. ^ridcgpcrr. New Jergey. prepared by
Camp, Tresser & McKee Inc., 1/28/66.
?. 22 "6-5 22 Z Report: Revised Draft Report. Cor.mer.ts cr. the
Revised Trsft Remedial Investigation and Rig'<
Assessment Reports,. Cher.ieal Leaman Tar.k
T.ir.egj, Locsr. Tewrshipj New Jersey, prepared by
Camp, Dresser & McKee Inc., 7/11/88. A letter
is attached.
?. 2321s-2221n Report: Aralytieal Quality Agg-jrgne» Rgyjgw
fcr ggleg*'e^ gre-'^re Wgt*r ar.d Soil Sarrrslge
Collected ir. I9£g for the Revised Draf*.
prepared by Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.
January 23, 1969.
Report: Remedial Investication Report for
Cher.iral Lear.ar. Tank Lines,. Inc. Superfur.e
gj*e. T.gg»r. T^vg^ip. Key Jer«ey. Vr'^'ng T.
prepared by Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.,
Fecruarv 155r.
-------
2356-2SC6 Repoprt : BeT'e^igl Trvgg* if a*ier; Pgert far
Sire. Lccar. Tovrighip. New Jersey. Volume II.
prepared by Chemical Leamar. Tank Lines/ Inc.,
February 1989
2JC7-42~C Report: Remedial Investigation Report. for
rr.igal Leamar. Tank Lings. Inc.
gjre. Log»- Tnwehip. Ngw Jersey. Vcli3TT>g III.
prepared by Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.,
February 1989
?. 427l-4£~4 Report: Flrial Draft Remedial Inveg* iga^ior.
P^ort for th.g Acrive Tgr^inal Area »»
Cherri _al Learr.ar. Tar.k Lines. Ing.-. Bridgeport:.
New Jersey Terminal. Volume I. prepared by
Environmental Resources Management, Inc.,
2/2/69. References are listed on P.
-465l Report: Appendices to the Fir.al Draft:
~c~o^igl Tr.vegt iar iar. Rerrt fer the Ac*ive
lir.eg. Ir.c.. jrid^gpcr*. New Jersey Tgr—i^g 1 .
Volure II f prepared by Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., 2/2/89. References are
listed on P.
4 ££2-5254 Report: Append iees to the Fir.al Drafr
?e-.gdial Ir.vesnicat ier. Report fer the Active
"gr—iral >-r»5 a* thg Chgr.ieal
T-i-gg. Ir.e.. Bridgeport. New Jersey Terrrir.al.
V~'M-Q ITT, prepared by Environmental
Resources Management, Inc., 2/2/89.
Report: Risk Assessment Report for Chemical
Lea~ar. Tank Lines. Inc. . £uperfund Site.
Operable Ur.it I. Logan Township. New Jersqy.
7/69.
C ~ - — gg~~**. t^gr. £g
P. 5650-5655 Letter to Mr. Richard C. Littlepage, Chemical
Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., from Mr. Ronald A.
Landon, Environmental Resources Management,
Inc., re: Kydrogeological investigations,
3/2C/S4. A'Proposed Monitor Well Test
Location figure is attached.
Letter to Mr. Rudolph M. Schuller,
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., from
Mr. Jc.u.n E. LaPadula, U.S. EPA, re: Remedial
Investigation field activities, 6/28/86.
-------
?. 5658-5661 Memorandum to Ms. Kara Levinson from Mr.
Michael E. Sertes, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, re: Results of the
24 Hour Water Level Test, 9/23/87. The
Average Monthly and Annual Precipitation and
Temperature at Indian Mills and Hammonton, New
Jersey (1531-1960) figure is attached.
Letter to Mr. Marinder K. Ahuja from Ms. Susan
K. Gilliland, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., re: Installation of
monitoring wells, 10/7/87.
Letter to Ms. Susan K Gilliland, Environmental
Resources Management, Inc., from- Mr. Peter
Garnish, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, re: Installation of
monitoring wells, 10/29/87.
5££4-5££5 Memorandum to Ms. Kara Levinscn from Mr.
Michael Sertes, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, re: Review of work
plan fcr additional well installation,
. 11/16/67.
?. 5£££-5££~ Memorandum re: QA/QC measures needed for
contractor supply cf ceior.ized water at CERC1A
sites, 12/8/87.
?. 5££=—5£~2 Letter to Mr. Fred Luckey, U.S. EPA, from Ms.
Kara Levinson, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, re: Transmittal for
comments on results of the 24 Hour Water Level
Test, 12/11/87. The comments are attached.
?. 5£~2-5£~4 Memorandum to Mr. Narinder Ahuja from Ms.
Karen Jentis, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, re: Installation of
monitoring wells in Cedar Swamp, 1/4/88.
P. 5£~5-56£3 Letter to to Mr. Bruce Kartmann, Chemical
Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., from Mr. Frederick J.
Luckey, U.S. EPA, re: Comments on the results
cf the 24 Hour Water Level Test, 1/4/88. A
revised version of the Department of
Commerce's comments on the Remedial
Investigation is attached.
Letter to Ms. Carolyn Grasso, New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, from.
Mr". Frederick J. Luckey, U.S. EPA, re:
Housekeeping practices observed at the
Chemical Lesman Tank Lines, Inc., Bridgeport
-------
Terminal, 4/15/68. Photographs and
explanations are attached.
y Memorandum re: Resampling of residential
wells, 2/9/6S. A site map is attached.
?. 36rC . . Letter to Mr. Raymond Basso from Mr. John S.
Malleck, U.S. Z?A, re: Comments on the
Remedial Investigation, 3/28/89.
?. 5£r1-5652 Letter to Mr. William Atkinson from Mr. Thomas
K. Uzzo, U.S. EPA, re: Private well sampling,
6/13/69.
?. 56r2-5£S5 Letter to Mr. Tom Uzzo, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
David J. Keil, Camp, Dresser & McKee Inc., re:
Residential water supplies, 8/25/89. The
results of a field survey and a map are
attached.
?. I-.'-- Memorandum re: Private and monitcrinc well
sampling, 12/13/89.
De~ err.ir.at ior.s
Letter to Mr. Frederick Luckey, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Roman S. Luzecky, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, re: Ground and
surface water ARARs, 5/5/68.
Letter to Mr. Frederick Luckey, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Reman S. Luzecky, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, re: Ground water
ARASS, 5/23/68.
dv Work Plans
p. E~C4-3835 Report: Site Operations Plan for the Remedial
Tr.ve«t igatior /Feasibility Srt:dy f prepared by
Environmental Resources Management, Inc.
Revised December 20, 1965.
p. £=4C-£S~5 Report: Feasibilty Study Work Plan, prepared
by Environment Resources Management, Inc.
March 28, 1988.
Repcrt : Craf~ Feagirility Study Repcr- f-r ->.g
A;-ive Tgr-.ir-al Args. prepared by
-------
Environmental Resources Management, Inc. March
10, 1989.
p. 6225-6149 Report: Fegeibili*y Study Report fer Chf-icsl
L^ETgr* Tsr^V Lir^gg. Tr.c. ?'jper*ur:?i Si*e. Logg"
Tovr.shlp. New Jersey, prepared by' Chemical
Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. March 1969.
F. 615:--65C6 Report: Addendum to Feasibility Study Report,
prepared by Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.
March 10, 1969.
P. 65C7-6766 Report: Feasibility Study Addendum for
Cher.ieal Learr.ar. Tank Lines. Inc. Super fur, d
gj*e. Logan Township, New Jersey, prepared by
COM Federal Programs Corporation. January
1990.
Letter to Mr. John LaPadula, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Bruce J. Kartmann, Chemical Leaman Tar.k
Lines, Inc., re: Monthly Procress Report,
5/S/65.
Letter to Mr. John LaPadula, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Bruce J. Kartmar.n, Chemical Leaman Tank
Lir.es, Inc./ re: Monthly Progress Report,
1C/4/65.
Letter to Mr. John LaPadula, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Bruce J. Kartmann, Chemical Leaman Tank
Lines, Inc., re: Monthly Procress Report,
11/6/85.
Letter to Mr. John LaPadula, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Bruce J. Kartmann, Chemical Leaman Tank
Lines, Inc., re: Monthly Progress Report,
12/9/85.
F. 6T=: Letter to Mr. John LaPadula, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Eruce J. Kartmann, Chemical Leaman Tank
Lines, Inc./ re: Monthly Progress Report,
1/9/86.
P. 6~=:-67S2 Letter to Mr. John LaPadula, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Eruce J. Hartmann, Chemical Leaman Tank
Lines, Inc., re: Monthly Progress Report,
2/7/86.
Letter to Mr. John LaPadula, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Eruce J. Kartmann, Chemical Leaman Tank
i ^
X w
-------
Lines, Inc., re: Monthly Progress Report,
3/5/56. Data sheets are attached.
6 = 25-£ = "5 Letter to Mr. John LaPadula, U.S. E?A, from
Mr. Bruce J. Hartmann, Chemical Leaman Tank
•Lines, Inc., re: Monthly Progress Report,
4/5/86. Data sheets are attached
6S75-6542 Letter to Bruce J. Kartmar.n, Chemical Leaman
Tank Lines, Inc., from Mr. Rudolph M.
Schuller, Environmental Resources Management,
Inc., re: Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study Monthly Report, 5/12/86. Data sheets
are attached.
6r44-£=4S Letter to Mr. John LaPadula, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Rudolph M. Schuller, Environmental
Resources Management, Inc., re: Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Project Schedule,
5/14/6£. Data sheets are attached.
Letter to Bruce J. Kartmann, Chemical Leaman
Tar.k Lines, Inc., from RMS, Environmental
resources Management, Inc., re: Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study Monthly
Report, 6/6/S6. Data sheets are attached.
Letter to Mr. John LaPadula, U.S. EPA, from
Bruce J. Kartmann, Chemical Leaman Tank Lines,
Inc., re: Monthly Progress Report, 6/9/66.
Letter to Mr. John LaPadula, U.S. EPA, from
Bruce J. Kartmann, Chemical Leaman Tank Lines,
Inc., re: Monthly Progress Report, 9/11/86.
Letter to Bruce J. Kartmann, Chemical Leaman
Tank Lines, Inc./ from Rudolph M. Schuller,
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., re:
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Monthly Report, 9/11/86.
Letter to Mr. John LaPadula, U.S. EPA, from
Bruce J. Hartrr.ann, Chemical Leaman Tank Lines,
Inc., re: Monthly Progress Report, 1C/9/86.
Letter to Bruce J. Kartmann, Chemical Leaman
Tar.k Lines, Inc., from Mr. Rudolph M.
Schuller, Environmental Resources Management,
. Inc., re: Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study Monthly Report, 10/11/86.
Letter tc Bruce .?. Kartmar.n, Chemical Lea.-an
Tank Lines, Inc., frcm Mr. Rudclph M.
Scr.uller, Environmental Resources Management,
11
-------
Inc., re: Remedial Investication/Feasibility
Study Monthly Report, 11/7/86.
Letter to Mr. John LaPadula, U.S. EPA, from
Bruce J. Hartmar.n, Chemical Leaman Tank Lines,
Inc., re: Monthly Progress Report, 11/10/86.
Letter to Bruce J. Hartmann, Chemical Leaman
Tank Lines, Inc., from Kr. Rudolph M.
Schuller, Environmental Resources Management,
Inc., re: Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study Monthly Report, 12/5/86.
:65 Letter to Mr. John LaPadula, U.S. EPA, from
Bruce J. Hartmann, Chemical Leaman Tank Lines,
Inc., re: Monthly Progress Report, 12/9/86.
:64 Letter to Ms. Anita Miller, U.S. Department of
the Interior, from Mr. Frederick J. Luckey,
U.S. EPA, re: SARA-required notification to
the Department of the fnterior, 1/6/65.
63-"C£6 letter to Ms. Anita Miller, U.S. Department of
the Interior, from Mr. Frederick J. Luckey,
U.S. EPA, re: Transmittal of the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study, 6/2/88.
Letter to Mr. Robert Gcitz, Camp, Dresser &
McXee Ir.c .-Federal Programs Corporation, frcrr.
Kr. David J. Keil, .Cars?, Dresser & McKee Inc.,
re: Corients to the Preliminary Feasibility
Study Report, 7/20/68.
Letter to Mr. Nelson S. Silver, New Jersey
Department of Community Affairs, from Mr.
William J. Librizzi, U.S. EPA, re: State
notification of a proposed Superfund project,
7/11/84.
Letter to Mr. Richard C. Littlepaoe, Chemical
Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., from MX. John
LaPadula, U.S. EPA, re: Confirmation of
telephone call about a public meeting,
1/24/86.
Letter to Mr. Frederick J. Luckey, U.S. EPA,
frrrr. Mr. Rudolph M. Schuller, Environmental
Rescurces Management, Inc., re: Site
12
-------
housekeeping by Ca.r.r, Dresser & McKee Inc.,
4/12/85.
- - ^_ ~ ~ c — — c - - £ c g o e e rrig ;
1C1-7270 Report: Risk Assessment Repcrt for Chemical
Les~£r: Tank Lines. Inc.,. g-jperfund Site.
Operable Ur:jt 1. Leoar. Tovr.ship. New Jersey.
prepared by unknown, July 1989.
72~1-T35£ AdTiir.istrative order on consent to CLTL, from
U.S. E?A, under CERCLA S1C6 (a), July 15,
1SS5. Waste data is attached.
?. ~j^"-"2r= Letter to Mr. John LaPaduia, U.S. EPA, frorr.
Mr. Eruce J. Kartmann, Che~ical Leaman Tank
lines, Inc., re: Transmittal of the Site
Cceraticns Flan for review and approval,
5/11/65.
?. ~l'-~ Letter to Mr. Stephen D. Luftic, U.S. EPA,
frcrr. Mr. Bruce J. Kartmann, Cheir.ical Leader.
Tar.k Lines, Inc., re: Coirjr.en cement of work at
the site, 2/3/S6.
?. ~ -.'.' Letter tc Mr. Narinder K. Ahuja from Ms. Susan
K. Gilliland, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., re: Installation of
monitoring wells, 10/7/87.
?. ~4:i-74C2 Letter to Mr. Frederick J. Luckey, U.S. EPA,
from Mr. John C. B. Simonson, Environmental
Resources Management, Inc., and Ms. Susan K.
Gilliland, Environmental Resources Management,
Inc., re: EPA comments on Environmental
Resources Management, Inc. water level test
results, 1/21/88.
P. 74C4 Letter to Mr. Fred Luckey, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
John C. E. Simorjsor, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., and Ms. Susan K. Gilliland,
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., re:
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection request fcr split spocn samples,
2/25/SS.
?". ~-.If-"4l2 Letter to Mr. Bruce Hartmar.n, Chemical "eamar.
Tar.k Lines, Inc., from Mr. John V. Czapcr,
13
-------
U.S. EPA, re: E?A comments on the work plan,
2/26/S8. The comments are attached.
P. 7414-7415 Letter to Mr. Frederick J. Luckey, U.S. EPA,
from Mr. Richard C. Littlepage, Chemical
Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., re: Incorporation of
sampling results into the final draft Remedial
Investigation and Endangerment Assessment,
3/7/88.
P. 7416-7423 Letter to Mr. Frederick Luckey, U.S. EPA, from
Ms. Susan Gilliland, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., re: Supplemental Remedial
Investigation work in progress, 3/24/88.
F. 7424-742S Letter to Mr. Bruce Kartmann, Chemical Leaman
Tank Lines, Inc., from Mr. John V. Czapor,
U.S. EPA, re: Amendment of the Feasibility
Study Work Flan, 4/21/88. EPA comments on the
Work Plan are attached.
P. 742r-7445 Letter to Mr. Bruce Hartmann, Chemical Leaman
Tank Lines, Inc., from Mr. John LaPadula,
U.S. EPA, re: Transmittal of EPA's guidance
en Re.T.edial Investigations/Feasibility
Studies, 5/5/6S. The guidance is attached.
?. 744£-~44~ Letter to Mr. Bruce Kartmann, Chemical Leaman
Tank Lines, Inc., from Mr. John V. Czapor,
U.S. EPA, re: Clarification of the ongoing
Feasibility Study, 5/9/88.
P. -44 = -'44r Letter to Mr. Fred Luckey, U.S. EPA, from Ms.
Ruth Baker, Environmental Resources
Management, Inc., and Ms. Susan K. Gilliland,
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., re:
Letter of Scope of Work for Ground Water
Treatability Study, 5/9/88.
P. 745C Letter to Mr. Fredrick [sic] Luckey, U.S. EPA,
from Ms. Susan Gilliland, Environmental
Resources Management, Inc., re: Separation of
the Wetlands work from the'Active Terminal
Area Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study,
5/25/88.
r. 7431-7452 Letter to Mr. Bruce Hartmann, Chemical Leaman
Tank Lines, Inc., from Mr. John V. Czapor,
U.S. EPA, re: Schedule and content of the
draft Feasibility Study, 5/26/88.
~. "452 Letter to Ms. Susan K. Gilliland,
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., frcr.
Mr. Rcr.an S. Luzecky, New Jersey Department of
14
-------
Envircr.mer.tal Protection, re: Review of the
Stream Encroachment Permit Application,
7/12/86.
7454-7455 Lt Mr. Bruce Hartmar.n, Chemical Leaman Tank
-Lines, Inc., from Mr. George Pavlou, U.S. EPA,
re: Transmittal of EPA's comments on the
craft Feasibility Study, 12/23/88. An Express
Mail receipt and EPA comments are attached.
~4=4-74r5 Lt Mr. Eruce Eartmann, Chemical Leaman Tank
Lines, Inc., from Mr. George Pavlou, U.S. EPA,
re: Transmittal of EPA's comments on the
draft Risk Assessment Study, 12/30/88. An
Express Mail receipt and EPA comments are
attached.
4r~-~4re Letter to Mr. George Pavlou, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Eruce Hartmar.n, Chemical Leaman Tank
Lines, Inc., re: EPA comments on the Remedial
Investigation Report, 1/3/8 S.
4rr-~5Cl Letter to Mr. Bruce Hartmar.n, Chemical Leamar.
Tank Lines, Inc., from Mr. George Pavlou, U.S.
EPA, re: Denial of request for an extension
cf submittal deadlines, 1/11/85. A certified
mail receipt is attached.
5C2-~5C4 Letter to Mr. George Pavlou, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Eruce J. Kartmann, Chemical Leaman Tank
Lir.es, Inc., re: Request for EPA review of
comments, 1/26/65.
;:5-~5:~ Letter to Mr. Frederick Luckey, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Bruce J. Hartmann, Chemical Leaman Tank
Lines, Inc., re: Environmental Resources
Manaoement, Inc. discussions with the EPA,
3/3/§9.
5CS Letter to Mr. Frederick Luckey, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Bruce J. Hartmann, Chemical Leaman Tank
Lines, Inc., re: Request for results of
residential well sampling, 5/16/89.
. ees
"5C5-7511 Letter to Ms. Nicoletta DiForte, U.S. EPA,
from Mr. Steven A. Tasher, Donovan Leisure
Newt own & Irvine, re: Voluntary cleanup
operations, 6/10/64.
15
-------
?. 7512-7513 Letter to Mr. C. Scott Parrish, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Steven A. Tasher, Bayh, Tabbert &
Capehart, re: Requests for copies of previous
studies for HRS comments, 11/7/83.
?. 7514-7515 Letter to Mr. Jonathan Kahn, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Steven A. Tasher, Donovan Leisure Newton &
-Irvine, re: Comments on the Work Plan,
3/5/85.
P. 7516-7517 Letter to Mr. Walter E. Mugdan, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Steven A. Tasher, Donovan Leisure Newton &
Irvine, re: Administrative Orders, 7/18/85.
?. 7515-7519 Letter to Mr. Jonathan Kahn, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Bruce J. Hartmann, Chemical Leaman Tank
Lines, Inc., re: Administrative 'Order,
6/20/65.
?. ~52C-~522 Letter to Mr. Richard C. Littlepage, Chemical
Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., from Mr. Stephen D.
Luftig, U.S. EPA, re: Revision of the Site
Operations Plan, 1/24/86.
?. "523 Letter to Mr. John LaPadula, U.S. EPA, frcm
Mr. Richard C. Littlepage, Chemical Leaman
Tank Lines, Inc., re: Confirmation of planned
public meeting, 2/11/86.
?. ~52-.-~527 Letter to Mr. Bruce Kartmann, Chemical Leaman
Tar.k Lines, Inc., from Mr. William J.
Muszynski, U.S. EPA, re: Termination of
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. authority to
complete the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study, 6/15/89.
Letter to Mr. William J. Muszynski, U.S. EPA,
from Mr. Steve Oster, Willkie Farr &
Gallagher, re: Remedial
Investioation/Feasibility Study continuation,
6/29/89.
p. 7536-7537 Letter to Mr. William J. O'Kane, Chemical
Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., from Mr. Douglas R.
Blazey, U.S. EPA, re: EPA response to
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
takeover, 8/18/89.
?. 753S-7553 Letter to Mr. Steve Oster, Willkie Farr &
Gallagher, from Mr. George Pavlou, U.S. EPA,
re: Response to technical considerations of
I?A assumption of the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study, 10/2C/69.
The technical responses are attached.
16
-------
?. 7554-7555 Letter to Ms. Robin Moses, U.S. EPA, frorr. Mr.
William J. O'Kar.e, Chemical Leaman Tank Lines,
Inc., re: Access authorization, 12/28/89.
The access authorization is attached.
c r-
P. "556-7570 Report: Health Aggessment for Chemical Leaman
Tar.k Lines. Ire. NPL Site. Loyan Township.
Gloucester Caur.ty. New Jergey. 4/10/89.
Me.T.crancum to Ms. Anita Miller, U.S.
Department of the Interior, and Mr. Thor
Cutler, U.S. Department of Commerce, from M:
Frederick J. Luckey, U.S. EPA, re:
Notification of Federal Natural Resource
Trustees, 1/4/88.
Letter to Mr. Clifford G. Day, U.S. Department
of the Interior, from Mr. Robert W. Hargrove,
U.S. EPA, re: Presence of federal
endangered/threatened species of critical
habitats in the vicinity of the Chemical
Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. site, 5/5/89.
Letter to Mr. Norman Vogelsang, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Robert Pavia, U.S. Department of Commerce,
re: Transmittal of NOAA's Preliminary Natural
Resource Survey and the final Ciba-Geigy
report, 5/15/89. The survey is attached.
?. 75=7-7552 Letter to Mr. Robert W. Hargrove, U.S. EPA,
from Mr. Michael T. Chezik, U.S. Department of
the Interior, re: Presence of federal
endangered/threatened species of critical
habitats in the vicinity of the Chemical
Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. site, 5/24/89. A list
of Federally Endangered and Threatened Species
ir. New Jersey and a list of Candidate Species
in New Jersey are attached.
?. ~5?4-"5r7 Letter to Mr. Vincent Pitruzello, U.S. EPA,
frcm Mr. Jonathan P. Deascn, U.S. Department
cf the Interior, re: Preliminary Natural
Resources Survey Repcrt, 11/1/89.
17
-------
P. 7525-76C5 Letter to Mr. Fred Luckey, U.S. EPA, from Mr
Thor Cutler, U.S. Department of Commerce, re
Site review and Remedial Investigation
comments, (undated).
icr. of Or her Public
F. 7606 Agenda for a Public Meeting, Chemical Leaman
Tank Lines Site, Municipal Building,
Bridgeport, New Jersey, 2/18/86.
F. 7607-7611 Public Meeting Summary, Chemical Leaman Tank
Lines, Inc. Site, Logan Township, New Jersey,
Eridceport Municipal Building, February IS,
19S6, 2/18/86.
~a " ~>.gg~s ar.d Frggs Rele
F. 7612-7614 Fact Sheet: Chemical Leamar. Tank
lir.gg. Inc.. Loean Towr.ship/Sloueester Ccnr.r:y.
2/86. A site map is attached.
F. "615-7616 Fact Sheet: E?A g^pg Cherr.iea
icar i&r. ef guerf ur.d gi*
x;ev Jgrggy. 7/13/8S.
p — ; — — eg^ ?g~?cisl A _ t i s r. Plan
F. ~61~-7622 E?.-. Ar.r.cu~eemer.t of Proposed Plar far
gr~-r.dv5t.er Remedia -ier. . July 19SO
Letter to the Honorable Lee M. Thomas, U.S.
EPA, from Mr. James J. Florio, U.S. House of
Representatives, re: Contamination of
community drinking water, 6/18/87.
P. 7624 Letter to to the Honorable James J. Florio,
U.S. House of Representatives, from U.S. EPA
re: Drinking water in the vicinity of the
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. site, 7/6/87
18
------- |