PB94-963835
EPA/ROD/R02-94/230
January 1995
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines Inc.,
Bridgeport, NJ
10/5/1993
-------
RECORD OF DECISION FACT SHEET
EPA REGION II
Site name: Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.
Site location: Bridgeport, New Jersey
HRS score: 47.53
Record of Decision:
Date signed: October 5,1993
Selected remedy: Alternative 3B:70XExcavatioAthe Swale Area, the Ponded Area
and the Adjacent Impacted Area, Off-site Disposal, and
Revegetation/Wetlands Restoration, Surface Water Runoff Control,
Wetlands Access Restriction and Long-term Monitoring
Operable Unit: OU-3
Capital cost: $6,314,110
0 & M cost: $88,094
Present-worth cost: $7,232,391
EPA
Primary Contact: David Rosoff (212) 264-5397
Secondary Contact: Kim O'Connell (212) 264-8127
Main PRPs: Chemical Leaman Tank Lines Inc. (CLTL) (215) 363-4204
Waste type: Metals, volatile and semi-volatile organics, and pesticides
Waste origin: CLTL's previous wastewater disposal activities
Estimated waste quantity: 11,500 cubic yards
Contaminated medium: surface water, soils and sediment
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.
Logan Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision documents the selected remedial action for contaminated
wetlands at the Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. site. The remedy was chosen in
accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq.
and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300. An administrative record for the site,
established pursuant to the NCP, contains the documents that form the basis for the
selection of the remedial action.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy has been consulted
on the planned remedial action and concurs with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Chemical Leaman 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, or the
environment
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The remedy described in this document represents the third of three planned remedial
phases or operable units for the Chemical Leaman site. It addresses wetlands
contamination at the site. A Record of Decision for the first operable unit, which
addresses ground water underlying the site, was issued on September 28,1990.
The second operable unit includes the former lagoon soils and residual sludges. The
selection of a remedial action for the lagoon contamination will be made after implementa-
tion and evaluation of the ground-water remedy.
-------
The selected remedy for the third operable unit Involves the excavation of contaminated
soils and sediments within the wetlands followed by restoration and revegetation of the
excavated areas. By excavating contaminated soils and sediments from the most highly
contaminated areas in the wetlands, the selected remedial action will address the principle
ecological threats by significantly reducing the contamination available to ecologic
receptors. The remedy also includes controls to ensure that potentially contaminated
surface runoff from the Chemical Lea/nan facility does not impact the remediated wetlands
through the construction of a berm/drainage system. To ensure that ecological risks,
contaminant migration and wetlands quality are appropriately managed, a long-term
monitoring program of the wetlands is included as part of the selected remedy.
The major components of the selected remedy include the following:
Excavation of the Swale Area, the Ponded Area and the Adjacent Impacted Area;
Off-site disposal of contaminated soils and sediments at an appropriate facility;
Backfilling with clean soil and revegetation/wetlands restoration;
Construction of a berm/drainage system along the wetlands adjacent to the
Chemical Leaman facility;
Wetlands access restriction through fence maintenance and sign posting; and
Long-term monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the remedy
DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy meets the following requirements for remedial actions set forth in
CERCLA §121, 42 U.S.C. §9621: (1) it is protective of human health and the environ-
ment; (2) complies with the legally applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
under federal and state laws; (3) is cost effective; and (4) utilizes permanent solutions and
alternative treatment (or resource recovery) technologies to the maximum extent
practicable.
The remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment
to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants at the site. However, the Environmental Protection Agency has concluded
that it is not practicable to treat the hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants at
the site, because available treatment alternatives have limited applicability to the site-
specific contamination and there is restricted implementabiiity in this wetlands environ-
ment.
-------
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on the site above
ecological risk-based levels, a review of the remedial action pursuant to CERCLA § 121 (c),
42 U.S.C. §9621 (c), will be conducted five years after commencement of the remedial
action to ensure that it continues to provide adequate protection to human health and the
environment
William J. Mystynsk PSf Date
Acting Regional Ad
HI
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
Chemical teaman Tank Lines, inc. Site
Operable Unit Three
Logan Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 1
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 2
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 2
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 3
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 5
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 9
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 9
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 14
SELECTED REMEDY 19
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 20
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 22
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX I. RGURES
APPENDIX II. TABLES
APPENDIX Hi. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX IV. STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX V. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. (CLTL) Bridgeport terminal 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 CLTL property encompasses approximately 31.4 acres. It includes: an active terminal
used for the dispatching, storing, maintaining and cleaning of tanker trucks and trailers;
fallow farmland adjacent to the terminal; and wetlands (Great Cedar Swamp) bordering
the terminal to the east and southeast Moss Branch Creek drains portions of Cedar
Swamp into Cooper Lake which is located approximately 1,000 feet north of the CLTL
terminal (Figure 2). Surface structures on the CLTL property include the terminal building,
an enclosed wastewater settling tank building, and a concrete wastewater holding tank
(Figure 2). Former subsurface structures include seven earthen settling and aeration
lagoons which have been backfilled and regraded (Figure 2).
The population of Logan Township is approximately 5,100. Nine residences are located
within 1,200 feet of the CLTL property. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
determined that all of these homes were impacted or imminently threatened by the CLTL-
related ground-water contaminant plume. Removal Actions conducted by EPA in 1987
and 1993 connected these homes to the Bridgeport Municipal Water System.
Several New Jersey State designated threatened or endangered species have been
observed at the site. These include the American Bittern, Bog Turtle and Barred Owl.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
CLTL 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 CLTL terminal has been in operation since the early 1960s. Past
wastewater 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 ojnlined settling and/or aeration lagoons and subsequently
discharged to the adjacent wetlands. The lagoons were located in two different areas on
the terminal property. The primary settling lagoons were situated east of the terminal
building and the aeration and final settling lagoons were located southwest of the terminal
building (Figure 2).
In 1975, the lagoons were taken out of service when CLTL was required to install a
wastewater containment system at the terminal. In 1977, liquid and sludge in the primary
settling lagoons were removed prior to backfilling with fill and construction debris. The
aeration and final settling lagoons were drained, but no lagoon materials were removed
prior to backfilling. In 1982, CLTL excavated visible sludge and contaminated soil from
-------
the former primary settling lagoons to an approximate maximum depth of twelve feet
below the surface, and the excavation was backfilled with sand.
In 1980-81, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
(NJDEPE) documented contamination in the ground water beneath the CLTL site. In
1981, CLTL conducted a hydrogeologic investigation to determine the extent of the
ground-water contamination. Twenty-five (25) monitoring wells were installed, and
between 1981 and 1983, these wells were sampled on a quarterly basis.
In 1985, EPA added the CLTL site to the National Priorities List of Superfund sites. An
Administrative Order on Consent (Index No. II CERCLA 50111) between EPA and CLTL
was signed in July 1985 pursuant to which CLTL agreed to conduct a Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to delineate the nature and extent of site-related
contamination in the ground water, soils and surface water at the CLTL site.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Rl report, FS report, and the Proposed Plan for the site were released to the public
for comment on July 30,1993. These documents were made available to the public in
the administrative record file at the EPA Docket Room in Region II, New York, New York
and the information repository at the Logan Township Municipal Building, 73 Main Street,
Bridgeport New Jersey. The notice of availability for the above-referenced documents
was published in the Gloucester County Times on July 30, 1993. The public comment
period on these documents was held from July 30, 1993 to August 28, 1993. At the
request of CLTL, the public comment period was extended to September 13,1993.
On August 10,1993, EPA conducted a public meeting at the Logan Township Municipal
Building to inform local officials and interested citizens about the Superfund process, to
review current and planned remedial activities at the site, and to respond to any questions
from area residents and other attendees.
Responses to the comments received at the public meeting and in writing during the
public comment period are included in the Responsiveness Summary (see Appendix V).
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT THREE
As with many Superfund sites, the problems at the Chemical Leaman site are complex.
As a result, EPA divided the site remediation into three phases or operable units.
Operable Unit One addresses the ground water at the site, Operable Unit Two, the former
lagoon soils and residual sludges, and Operable Unit Three, the adjacent wetlands on and
around the CLTL property. These wetlands include surface waters, soils and sediments
in Cooper Lake, Moss Branch and Cedar Swamp (Figure 3).
-------
EPA finalized the RI/FS and Risk Assessment documents for Operable Unit One in July
1990. A Record of Decision for Operable Unit One (ground-water contamination) was
issued on September 28,1990.
An Rl Report and Risk Assessment were completed for Operable Unit Two in 1991,
however, the selection of a remedy for the soils contamination was postponed pending
the preliminary results of the Operable Unit One Remedial Design and Remedial Action.
These results will be reviewed to determine if the residual soil contamination within the
former lagoons is a significant source of ground-water contamination. Operable Unit One
is presently in the Remedial Design phase.
This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses the third operable unit for the site (wetlands
contamination). The contaminated wetlands pose a threat at this site because of the
present and future impact to ecological receptors.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The Rl for Operable Unit Three was performed in two phases. The first phase involved
a limited sampling of the wetlands associated with CLTL's initial Rl field work at the site
in 1986. The majority of the wetland sampling was completed by EPA during a second
phase of field work in 1991 and 1992. In 1986, three surface soil samples and eleven
surface water and sediment samples were collected in the Cedar Swamp wetland
adjacent to the CLTL facility. Eight of the eleven surface water and sediment samples
were collected in Moss Branch Creek. Four surface water and sediment samples from
Cooper Lake were also collected in 1986.
As part of the 1991/1992 Rl field work, EPA collected and analyzed 24 surface soil, 12
surface water and 34 sediment samples in Cedar Swamp adjacent to the CLTL facility.
Nine surface water and sediment samples were collected from Cooper Lake. Three
surface soil samples from the south shore of Cooper Lake were also obtained.
Soil and sediment sampling in Cedar Swamp indicates that site-related contaminants are
scattered throughout the wetlands. However, the majority of contaminants are
concentrated in and around the drainage swale (the swale area") south of the terminal
building and in the area of ponded water (the ponded area") east of the terminal building
(Figure 4). Both of these areas received direct discharge of wastewater from the former
lagoons. The Cedar Swamp wetland directly adjacent to these areas is also contaminat-
ed, but to a lesser degree. Samples collected in Cedar Swamp further away from the
CLTL facility showed a decrease in both the frequency of contaminants detected and the
concentration of those contaminants. However, some contaminants have been detected
in samples collected at the perimeter of the wetland study area
Contaminants detected in the Cedar Swamp wetlands include volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides, polychlorinated
-------
biphenyls (PCBs) and metals (Table 2). Metals, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium
and lead, and SVOCs, including phthalates and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
are the contaminants present most frequently and in the highest concentrations above
background ranges in the wetlands at the site.
Pesticides, including 4,4-DDE, 4,4-DDD, 4,4-DDT, and endosulfan sulfate, were
widespread in both the sediment and surface soil samples in the wetlands of Cedar
Swamp adjacent to the CLTL facility and in the background locations. The ubiquitous
presence of pesticides and the nature of land use in the area (extensive farming) suggest
that some contribution of the pesticides at the site may not be from the CLTL facility.
PCBs were detected in 6 of 21 soil samples and 2 of 30 sediment samples at low levels.
PCBs were not detected over most of the Cedar Swamp wetlands area
Table 3 provides a summary of contaminants detected in the ponded and swale areas as
well as the adjacent areas of Cedar Swamp defined in the Rl. These adjacent areas were
defined to aid in presenting and discussing the data and to provide geographical
reference points within the wetlands. Table 3 also summarizes contaminant data from
Cooper Lake.
Metals, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium and lead, were detected at elevated levels
in Cedar Swamp surface waters and were concentrated in the ponded area (Table 4).
Cedar Swamp surface water samples only showed trace concentrations of SVOCs and
pesticides. VOCs and PCBs were not detected in the surface waters of Cedar Swamp.
Cooper Lake surface water samples had metals concentrations at or below background
levels. Phthalates were detected at trace concentrations in two surface water samples.
No other organic contaminants or pesticides were detected in Cooper Lake surface
waters.
Chromium and nickel concentrations were detected slightly above background levels in
one Cooper Lake sediment sample. Four VOCs and one phthalate (at trace concentra-
tions) were also detected in Cooper Lake sediments. The maximum total VOCs level in
the sediments was 2 parts per million (ppm). Endosulfan sulfate was the only pesticide
detected in Cooper Lake sediments. The soils collected on the south shore of Cooper
Lake contained metals at or below background levels, total SVOCs at a maximum of 210
parts per bOfion (ppb), and one VOC, toluene, at trace concentration. Endosulfan sutfate
was detected at low concentrations. Cooper Lake sampling data is summarized in Table
5.
-------
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
EPA conducted a baseline risk assessment to evaluate the potential risks to human health
and the environment associated with Operable Unit Three of the CLTL site in its current
state. The Risk Assessment focused on contaminants in the soils, sediments and surface
waters of the wetlands adjacent to the CLTL facility which may pose significant risks to
human health and the environment The summary of the contaminants of concern in
sampled matrices is listed in Tables A and G for human and environmental receptors,
respectively.
Human Hearth Risk
EPA's baseline human health risk assessment addressed the potential risks to human
health by identifying potential exposure pathways by which the public may be exposed
to contaminant releases at the site under current and future land-use conditions.
Exposure pathways were evaluated for adolescent trespassers in the swale area of the
wetlands (Table B). Adolescent trespassers were considered to be the most likely human
receptors for contamination at the site, as the wetlands cannot be developed for
residential or industrial purposes in the future under current laws protecting such areas
in the State of New Jersey. The swale is the most highly contaminated area in the
wetlands which is accessible to trespassers. The baseline risk assessment evaluated
potential health effects which could result from dermal contact with and ingestion of
contaminated soils and sediments in the area of the swale by adolescent trespassers.
The reasonable maximum exposure was evaluated.
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
compounds of concern 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 milligrams/kilogram-day
(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
sediments) are compared to the RfD to derive the hazard quotient for the contaminant in
the particular medium. The HI is obtained by adding the hazard quotients for all
compounds across an media that impact a particular receptor population.
-------
An HI greater than 1.0 indicates that the potential exists for noncartinogenic health effects
to occur as a result of site-related exposures. The HI provides a useful reference point
for gauging the potential significance of multiple contaminant exposures within a single
medium or across media. The reference doses for the contaminants of concern at the
site are presented in Table C. A summary of the noncartinogenic risks associated with
these chemicals across various exposure pathways is found in Table D.
ft can be seen from Table D that the HI for noncartinogenic effects from exposure to
contaminated soils and sediments in the CLTL wetlands is 0.02, therefore, noncarcino-
genic effects would not be expected to occur from the exposure routes evaluated in the
risk assessment
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer slope factors developed by
EPA for the contaminants of concern. Cancer slope factors (SFs) have been developed
by EPA's Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor for estimating excess
lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals. SFs,
which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)'1, 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 SFs.
Use of this approach makes the underestimation of the risk highly unlikely. The SFs for
the contaminants of concern are presented in Table E.
For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper-bound individual
lifetime cancer risks of between 10"* to 10*6 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 site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year
period under specific exposure conditions at the site. The baseline risk assessment
estimated that the cumulative upper-bound carcinogenic risk for trespassers at the site
is 2 x 10*. This risk number means that two additional persons out of one million
trespassers at the site would potentially be at risk of developing cancer if the swale were
not remediated enable F). This risk is within EPA's acceptable risk range as provided in
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
The results of the human health risk assessment at the site suggest that no carcinogenic
or noncarcinogenic risks exceed EPA's recommended guidelines for protection of human
health from the wetland surface water, sediment, or soil.
Ecological Risk
Potential risks to the environmental receptors associated with Operable Unit Three of the
CLTL site were identified in the ecological risk assessment The ecological risk
assessment identified the Barred Owl, Bog Turtle, Bullfrog, Green Heron, Snapping Turtle,
Vole, Sunfish, and Earthworm as potential receptors threatened by the site contaminants
6
-------
In the wetlands (Table H). These receptors can be exposed to contaminated soil,
sediment and/or surface water via dermal absorption, Inhalation of particulate or vapor,
and ingestion. However, the most acute exposure would be through ingestion, which was
analyzed in detail in the ecological risk assessment (Table I). The Cedar Swamp wetland
is situated to the south and east of the CLTL facility at the topographically lowest point
on the site, and acts as a receiving area for runoff from the higher elevation areas on site.
These areas include both the former wastewater lagoons and the current active facility.
The overflow from the former lagoons has accounted for the significant accumulations of
CLTL-related contaminants measured in wetland surface water, sediment and soil. Based
on data from current Bterature, it is dear that the selected contaminants of concern (Table
J) provide a significant risk to ecological receptors. The following are conclusions derived
in the ecological risk assessment
Surface water and sediment contamination levels will impact amphibian
reproduction. Metals contamination exceeded the Lethal Concentration
50% (LC50) dose for bluegfll and tadpole. LC50 represents the concen-
tration that is lethal to 50% of the population acutely exposed. Concentra-
tions of DDT and its metabolites were reported within the sediment and
surface water at levels that could readily affect avian reproduction and
cause death in invertebrate species. Surface soil metal concentrations,
specifically chromium, copper, and lead, were found to be above the known
toxic effect levels for earthworms (Table K).
Metals contaminant concentrations in site surface water exceeded EPA's
established Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the protection of aquatic life
(Table L). The maximum exceedances occurred In the ponded area.
Copper, aluminum, and lead concentrations in this area are expected to .
significantly impact the reproductive success of amphibians and reptiles.
Metals contaminant concentrations in the ponded area and in the adjacent
impacted area exceeded adverse biological effect levels used by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in developing
sediment contaminant guidelines (Table M).
The central and eastern portion of the she, including the swale and the
adjacent impacted area, is dominated by common reed (Phragmttes sp.)
and purple loosetrife, "nuisance" plant species that are common throughout
New Jersey. These two species typically occur in areas of disturbed
habitat Their widespread presence in the central portion of the site, where
significant wetland impacts have occurred through intrusive activities, such
as the discharge of contaminated wastewater from the CLTL facility, are
indicative of wetland disturbance. Phrag mites and/or purple loosetrife
dominates in areas where other species are less tolerant of the intrusive
activities. The infiltration of these species creates a less diverse floral
-------
community and a tower quality wetland. The abundance of stressed
vegetation and the absence of diverse wetland cover in areas that formerly
provided diverse functional value represent significant negative wetland
impacts associated with the CLTL facility.
New Jersey State designated threatened or endangered species have been observed at
the site. These include the American Bittern and Bog Turtle.
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this evaluation, as hi 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 and/or food chain modeling
• exposure parameter estimation
• toxicologies! 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 human health 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 the ecological exposure assessment are related to the selection of
representative species and assumptions regarding their interactions with affected media.
In the Human Health Risk Assessment, uncertainties in toxicologicaJ data occur in
extrapolating both from animals to humans and from high to tow 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, the Risk Assessment
provides upper-bound estimates of the risks to populations near the site, and is highly
unlikely to underestimate actual.risks related to the site.
In the Ecological Risk Assessment, uncertainties associated with toxicologicaJ data arise
from dose-response differences between species, differential responses elicited by
8
-------
laboratory test organisms and organisms on site, and difficulties associated with
assessment of chemical mixtures.
More specific information concerning public health and ecological risks, are presented in
the Risk Assessment Reports.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed
by implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to the public health, welfare, or the environment.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
RemeolaJ action objectives are specific goals developed to protect human health and the
environment.
The foBowing remedial action objectives were established for Operable Unit Three of the
CLTLste:
Reduce potential for exposure of contaminated soils, sediments and surface
water by ecological receptors;
Restore the most severely degraded areas of the wetlands to a viable plant
community;
Reduce off-site transport of contaminants in the sediments, soils and
surface water;
Prevent potential migration of contaminants into the wetlands via overland
runoff from the CLTL facility; and
Prevent Further degradation of the wetlands.
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Section 121(b)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §9621 (b)(1), mandates that a remedial
action must be protective of human health and the environment, cost effective, and utilize
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Section 121(b)(1) also establishes a
preference for remedial actions which employ, as a principal element, treatment to
permanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicrty, or mobility of the hazardous
substances, pollutants and contaminants at a site. CERCLA § 121 (d), 42 U.S.C. §9621 (d),
further specifies that a remedial action must attain a level or standard of control of the
9
-------
hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants, which at least attains applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) under federal and state laws, unless a
waiver can be justified pursuant to CERCLA §121 (d)(4), 42 U.S.C. §9621 (d)(4).
This ROD evaluates, in detail, six remedial alternatives for addressing the contamination
associated with Operable Unit Three of the CLTL site. The time to implement a remedial
alternative reflects only the time required to construct or implement the remedy and does
not include the time required to design the remedy, negotiate with the responsible party,
procure contracts for design and construction, or conduct operation and maintenance
activities.
It must be noted that the excavation and soil emplacement alternatives described below
are all considered limited actions. They are limited in that they propose remediation for
ortty the most degraded and contaminated portions of the wetlands. The Rl showed that
contaminants are concentrated in and around the drainage swale ("the swale area") south
of the terminal building and in the area of ponded water (the ponded area") east of the
terminal building (Figure 5). Both of these areas received direct discharge of wastewater
from the former lagoons. The Cedar Swamp wetland directly adjacent to these areas
(•the impacted area") is also considered a "hot spot" of contamination (Figure 5). More
diverse, ecologically functional portions of Cedar Swamp located further from the CLTL
facility are not considered for remediation in this ROD. Compared with the areas of the
wetlands addressed in the alternatives described below, these areas contain significantly
lower frequencies of contaminants. To ensure that ecological risks, contaminant
migration and wetlands degradation are appropriately managed, a long-term monitoring
program of the wetlands is included as part of each alternative described below. Some
of the alternatives described below include excavation and/or soil emplacement as
principal elements. Contaminants would be removed from the site and treated and
disposed of off site. On-site treatment technologies were evaluated in the FS, but were
screened out due to their technical infeasibility in a wetland environment and their limited
applicability to wetland soils.
The remedial alternatives are:
Alternative 1: No Action.
Capital Cost: $0
Annual O&M Costs: $33,968(30 years)
Present Worth Cost: $386,244
Implementation Tone: Not Applicable
Under the NCP, EPA evaluates the No Action alternative for every Superfund site to
establish a baseline for comparison to other alternatives. Under the No Action alternative,
no further remedial action would be taken to address the wetlands contamination.
.10
-------
However, the No Action alternative would consist of a basic monitoring program involving
two components: chemical contaminant monitoring and wetland vegetation monitoring.
If the two component monitoring program shows further degradation of the wetlands, a
macro-invertebrate monitoring program may be added at a later time. The monitoring
program would be long-term, with re-evaluation occurring every five years.
Alternative 2: Surface Runoff Control, Wetlands Access Restriction and Long-Term
Monitoring.
Capital Cost: $501,526
Annual O&M Costs: $88,094
Present Worth Cost: $1,419,807
Implementation Time: 3 months
Under this alternative, surface stormwater runoff from the active CLTL terminal to the
wetlands would be contained. Containment would be achieved through the construction
of a berm along the southern and eastern perimeter of the terminal facility. The berm
would consist of a concrete curb and sections of gutter. Approximately 1,100 linear feet
of berm would be constructed. The berm would be constructed to a height that could
contain stormwater from a 100-year storm. Runoff would be collected in sumps and
pumped to above-ground storage tanks. The water would be either discharged to the
Operable Unit One treatment system, if applicable, or sent off site for treatment and
disposal. This containment alternative eliminates the potential for contaminated runoff to
enter the wetlands.
Post-construction long-term monitoring of Cedar Swamp, as described under Alternative
1, would be conducted to assess any remaining risk to ecological receptors, bioavailability
of contaminants and the potential for contaminant migration from the wetland areas
presently impacted by CLTL-related contamination.
In addition to the containment of stormwater runoff, this alternative calls for the
maintenance of existing fences on the perimeter of the wetlands, as well as the posting
of warning signs to discourage trespassing in the wetlands. Restriction of human access
to the wetlands would ensure that the human health risk remains within EPA's acceptable
range.
This alternative would require a review of the remedial action every five years pursuant
to CERCLA §121(c), 42 U.S.C. §9621 (c), because implementing this alternative would
result in hazardous substances remaining on site above ecological risk-based levels.
Additional remedial actions could be required depending on the results of such a review.
11
-------
Alternative 3A: Excavation of the Swale Area and the Ponded Area, Off-Site
Disposal, and Revegetation/Wetlands Restoration. Surface Runoff Control,
Wetlands Access Restriction and Long-Term Monitoring.
Capital Cost $ 3,067,877
Annual O&M Costs: $88,094
Present Worth Cost $3,986,158
Implementation Time: 1 year
This alternative incorporates runoff containment, site access restriction, and long-term
monitoring, as described in Alternative 2, with excavation and removal of contaminated
soils and sediments from the ponded and swale areas (Figure 5), backfilling and
revegetation of excavated areas, and off-site disposal of excavated soil and sediment
The ponded and swale areas would be excavated to a depth of approximately one foot
The area! extent of the ponded and swale areas is approximately 2.8 acres. The
approximate volume of soil and sediment to be excavated from these areas would be
4,500 cubic yards.
The exact depth and area! extent to be excavated would be refined during the Remedial
Design and/or Remedial Action phases of the project Post-excavation sampling would
be utilized to determine if further excavation is necessary to address any unacceptable
ecological risk. This evaluation will be based on a qualitative risk analysis.
it is expected that the sediments in the ponded area would have a high moisture content
and would require removal by dredging and dewatering on site prior to transport and off-
sfte disposal at an approved facility under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Water would be pumped to a storage tank and treated and disposed of on the
site within the Operable Unit One treatment system, if applicable, or off-site.
A revegetation program would be instituted to establish wetland communities that would
restore functional value to the excavated wetlands.
Because the ground-water contaminant plume beneath the CLTL facility may be a
continuing source of wetlands contamination, excavation would not take place until the
ground-water extraction and treatment system under the Operable Unit One remedy is
operational. However, construction of the stormwater berm and the remedial design of
the this alternative, which would include pre-design monitoring, could take place prior to
the Operable Unit One Remedial Action.
This alternative would require a review of the remedial action every five years pursuant
to CERCLA §121(c), 42 U.S.C. §9621 (c), because implementing this alternative would
result in hazardous substances remaining on-site above ecological risk-based levels.
Additional remedial actions could be required depending on the results of such a review.
12
-------
Alternative 3B: Excavation of the Swale Area, the Ponded Area and Adjacent
Impacted Area, Off-Site Disposal, and Revegetation/Wetlands Restoration. Surface
Runoff Control, Wetlands Access Restriction and Long-Term Monitoring.
Capita! Cost $6,314,110
Annual O&M Costs: $88,094
Present Worth Cost $7,232,391
Implementation Time:1 year
This alternative incorporates all of the components of Alternative 3A. It differs in that the
impacted area south of the ponded area and south and east of the swale area is included
in the excavation (Figure 5). The aerial extent of the total area to be excavated under this
alternative is estimated to be 7.3 acres. The total volume of soil and sediment to be
excavated would be approximately 11,500 cubic yards.
This alternative would require a review of the remedial action every five years pursuant
to CERCLA §121(c), 42 U.S.C. §9621 (c), because implementing this alternative would
result in hazardous substances remaining on site above ecological risk-based levels.
Additional remedial actions could be required depending on the results of such a review.
Alternative 4A: Son Emplacement In the Swale Area and the Ponded Area,
Revegetation/Wetlands Restoration. Surface Water Runoff Control, Wetlands
Access Restriction and Long-Term Monitoring.
Capital Cost: $1,329,718
Annual O&M Costs: $88,094
Present Worth Cost $2,247,999
Implementation Time: 1 year
This alternative incorporates all of the components of Alternative 2 in addition to the
replacement of the lost function and value of the contaminated wetlands through soil
emplacement and revegetation. Under this alternative, the ponded and swale areas
would be contoured to form hummocks Cow mounds or ridges of earth) and inundated
bw areas (Figure 6). Hummocks, or upland islands, would be covered with permeable
soil, and vegetated with shrub and wooded species (Figure 7, Table 5). Hummocks are
added to increase wetland topography and enhance seedling survival. The elevation of
the hummocks would vary from six inches to two feet above the standing water level.
Occasional inundation would not harm seedlings planted in this manner. Portions of the
2.8 acres comprising the ponded and swale areas (approximately 10 percent of this area)
would be excavated to a depth of two feet below the anticipated water surface to create
inundated areas. This alternative would require approximately 8,100 cubic yards of dean
soil and would produce approximately 1,400 cubic yards of excavated soil for dewatering
13
-------
and off-site disposal. This alternative would help reduce ecological risk and create a
higher quality wetland.
This alternative would require a review of the remedial action every five years pursuant
to CERCLA §121(c), 42 U.S.C. §9621 (c), because implementing this alternative would
result in hazardous substances remaining on site above ecological risk-based levels.
Additional remedial actions could be required depending on the results of such a review.
Alternative 4B: Soil Emplacement In the Swale Area, the Ponded Area and Adjacent
Impacted Area, Revegetatlon/Wetlands Restoration. Surface Water Runoff Control,
Wetlands Access Restriction and Long-Term Monitoring.
Capital Cost $2,429,204
Annual O&M Costs: $88,094
Present Worth Cost: $3,347,485
Implementation Time: 1 year
This alternative incorporates all of the components of Alternative 4A, however, it is
different in that the impacted area south of the ponded area and south and east of the
swale area is included (Figure 5). Under this alternative, the extent of the area to be
addressed is estimated to be 7.3 acres. As a result, the total volume of soil to be used
to cover upland areas would be approximately 22,000 cubic yards. Approximately 2,700
cubic yards of excavated soil and sediment would be produced for dewatering and off-site
disposal by excavation to create inundated areas.
This alternative would require a review of the remedial action every five years pursuant
to CERCLA §121(c), 42 U.S.C. §9621 (c), because implementing this alternative would
result in hazardous substances remaining on site above ecological risk-based levels.
Additional remedial actions could be required depending on the results of such a review.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
In selecting a remedy, EPA considered the factors set out in CERCLA §121, 42 U.S.C.
§9621, by conducting a detailed analysis of the viable remedial alternatives pursuant to
the NCP, 40 CFR § 300.430(e) (9) and OSWER Directive 9355.3-01. The detailed analysis
consisted of an assessment of the individual alternatives against each of nine evaluation
criteria and a comparative analysis focusing upon the relative performance of each
alternative against those criteria.
14
-------
The following threshold' criteria must be satisfied by any alternative in order to be eligible
for selection:
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether or not
a remedy provides adequate protection and describes how risks posed through
each exposure pathway (based on a reasonable maximum exposure scenario) are
eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or
institutional controls.
2. Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy would meet all of the
applicable (legally enforceable), or relevant and appropriate (requirements that
pertain to situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at a Superfund site
such that their use is well suited to the site) requirements of federal and state
environmental statutes and requirements or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
The following •primary balancing" criteria are used to make comparisons and to identify
the major trade-offs between alternatives:
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of a remedy to
maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment over time, once
cleanup goals have been met It also addresses the magnitude and effectiveness
of the measures that may be required to manage the risk posed by treatment
residuals and/or untreated wastes.
4. Reduction of toxicty, mobility, or volume via treatment refers to a remedial
technology's expected ability to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants at the site.
5. Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve protection
and any adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may be
posed during the construction and implementation periods until cleanup goals are
achieved.
6. Implementabilrty refers to the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy,
including the availability of materials and services needed.
7. Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs, and the
present-worth costs.
15
-------
The following "modifying" criteria are considered fully after the formal public comment
period on the Proposed Plan is complete:
8. State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the RI/FS and the
Proposed Plan, the State supports, opposes, and/or has identified any reserva-
tions with the preferred alternative.
9. Community acceptance refers to the public's general response to the alternatives
described in the Proposed Plan and the RI/FS reports. Factors of community
acceptance to be discussed include support, reservation, and opposition by the
community.
A comparative analysis of the remedial alternatives based upon the evaluation criteria
noted above follows.
• Overall Protection of Human Hearth and the Environment
Alternatives 3A, 3B, 4A and 4B all address ecological risks posed by the site to varying
degrees. Alternatives 3A, 3B, 4A and 4B all would eliminate potential contaminant loading
to the wetlands via stormwater control. Alternative 3B would substantially reduce the risk
to ecological receptors through removal of the majority of contaminated soils and
sediments. Stressed wetlands would be restored to wetlands of higher functional value.
Alternatives 3A and 4A would leave a larger portion of contaminated wetland unremediat-
ed, resulting in a greater risk to ecological receptors compared to Alternative 3B.
Alternative 4B would emplace soil over and revegetate the entire area considered for
remediation, however, contamination would remain in the ecosystem. Alternatives 1 (No
Action) and 2 would not reduce the current risk to ecological receptors and would not
restore the functional value of the wetlands. The No Action alternative is not protective
of the environment and would not provide stormwater runoff control.
• Compliance with ARARs
There are no chemical-specific ARARs for the contaminated sediments and soils in the
wetlands adjacent to the CLTL site. EPA has identified, through the performance of the
RI/FS, several areas of elevated levels of contamination. A number of the remedial
alternatives developed in the FS report and presented in this ROD address a portion, or
all of these areas representing major sources of risk to ecological receptors. The Federal
Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) established pursuant to the Clean Water Act are
ARARs for contaminated surface water on the site. The ponded area contains surface
waters that exceed the AWQC for some contaminants. Alternatives 3A, 3B, 4A and 4B
would all remediate the contaminated surface water in the ponded area through removal
16
-------
and off-site treatment and disposal in association with sediment remediation. However,
the AWQC for surface water is expected to be maintained only if the remedial alternative
rs combined with the Operable Unit One groundwater treatment remedy and overland
runoff containment
All of the alternatives could be performed in compliance with action/location-specific
ARARs for remedial activities in wetlands and floodplains, such as the Clean Water Act
and the New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act. In addition, Alternatives 3A, 3B,
4A and 4B involve off-site disposal of excavated soils and sediments from the site. For
each of these alternatives, the excavated material would be tested to determine if it is
characteristic RCRA waste prior to disposal. If it is determined to be characteristic waste,
based on this testing, additional treatment (solidification/stabilization) would be required
prior to disposal.
• Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives 3A and 3B are protective over the long term. Potential contaminant loading
to the wetlands would be eliminated, a large portion of the existing contamination would
be removed, and the wetlands would be restored to provide higher functional value.
Alternative 3B would remove a larger portion of the contamination and, as a result, is
more protective than Alternative 3A. Alternatives 4A and 4B are not as effective as
Alternatives 3A and 3B since the contaminated sediments and soils remaining after the
remediation may continue to cause risk to ecological receptors and may continue to
degrade the wetlands. Alternatives 4A and 4B do not ensure that contaminants left in the
ecosystem would not become bioavaiiable over time. Bioturbation and/or soil erosion
could expose contaminants to receptors in the future. Maintenance of soil emplacement
areas may be difficult following revegetation. Alternative 2 is effective in eliminating
potential source loading to the wetlands but does not address existing soil and sediment
contamination in the wetlands. The No Action alternative is not effective in reducing risk
to ecological receptors. All alternatives will include a long-term monitoring program.
• Reduction in Toxicrtv. Mobility, or Volume via Treatment
Alternatives 3A and 3B would achieve a reduction in the toxic'rty, mobility, and volume of
the contaminants in wetland areas. Alternative 3B would reduce the toxicrty, mobility and
volume of contaminants to the greatest degree since the majority of contaminants in the
wetlands would be permanently removed. Alternative 3A would allow more of the
contaminated soils and sediments to remain in the wetlands at levels that may cause risk
to ecological receptors compared to Alternative 3B. Alternatives 4A and 4B do not
significantly reduce the toxicity or volume of the contaminants. Due to the likelihood of
contaminant leaching overtime, these alternatives will limit, but not permanently eliminate
contaminant mobility.
17
-------
Under Alternatives 3A, 3B, 4A, and 4B, excavated material would be disposed of at an
appropriate off-site facility. All materials would be sampled, treated (if necessary) and
disposed of in accordance with RCRA regulations.
The No Action alternative and Alternative 2 would not reduce contaminant toxicity,
mobility, or volume in the wetlands.
• Short-Term Effectiveness
AH of the alternatives involving excavation and clearing and grubbing of the wetlands (3A,
SB, 4A, and 4B) would have some short-term negative impact on the ecosystem. Of
these alternatives, 4A and 4B, which do not involve significant excavation fi.e. they
address approximately 10% of the identified areas), would have the least short-term
impact on the wetlands. However, all four after-natives would be implemented in stressed
areas of low functional value and would include restoration of the wetlands. Alternatives
3A, 3B, 4A, and 4B would pose a low-level risk to orvsrte workers during remedial action,
however, this risk can be managed by appropriate health and safety measures. The risk
to the community associated with these alternatives would be low.
Alternative 2 would have Tittle or no short-term impacts on the wetland ecosystem. Berm
construction, under this alternative, would pose a low-level risk to on-site workers during
construction which could be easily managed through proper health and safety controls.
The No Action alternative is not applicable to this criterion since no remedial action would
be implemented.
• imptementabifrty
All six alternatives are readily implementable as the equipment and technologies involved
are standard and commercially available. Alternative 1, No Action, is the most easily
implemented as it involves a minimal amount of site work. Alternative 2 would require
more planning and site work than Alternative 1, but is still easily implemented.
Alternatives 3A, 3B, 4A, and 4B are less readily implementable than Alternatives 1 and 2.
These alternatives involve more planning and more extensive site work than Alternatives
land 2.
Alternatives 2, 3A, SB, 4A, and 4B can an be implemented using standard construction
equipment and techniques. All technologies that would be used in this alternative are
standard and commercially available.
Stormwater controls, dredging, dewatering and off-site disposal are routine construction
operations. Moderate difficulty would be posed by the operation of heavy excavating
18
-------
equipment on inundated unstable soils. Barging timbers would be used to provide
stability for the dredging cranes.
Additional truck traffic for construction activities would not be a significant concern since
the CLTL terminal is an active trucking facility.
Cost
The total capital cost and present worth of the remedial alternatives are:
Capital Cost Present Worth
Alternative 1: $0 $386,244
Alternative 2: $501,526 $1,419,807
Alternative 3A: $3,067,877 $3,986,158
Alternative 3B: $6,314,110 $7,232,391
Alternative 4A: $1,329,718 $2,247,999
Alternative 4B: $2,429,204 $3,347,485
The annual operation and maintenance cost for Alternative 1 is $33,968. This cost is for
long-term monitoring of the wetland. The annual operation and maintenance cost for
Alternatives 2,3A, 3B, 4A and 4B is $88,094. This cost is for long-term monitoring of the
wetlands and operation and maintenance of the stormwater berm under each alternative.
Cost estimates assume that soils and sediments will be excavated to a depth of one foot.
• State Acceptance
The State of New Jersey concurs with the selected remedy.
• Community Acceptance
The community supports the selected 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
EPA and N JDEPE have determined after reviewing the alternatives and public comments,
that Alternative 3B is the appropriate remedy for the site, because ft best satisfies the
requirements of CERCLA §121,42 U.S.C. §9621, and the NCP's nine evaluation criteria
for remedial alternatives, 40 CFR §300.430(e)(9).
19
-------
The major components of the selected remedy ore as follows:
Excavation of the Swale Area, the Ponded Area and the Adjacent Impacted Area,
Off-Site Disposal, and Revegetation/Wetlands Restoration, Surface Water Runoff
Control, Wetlands Access Restriction and Long-Term Monitoring.
By excavating approximately one foot of contaminated soils and sediments from the most
highly contaminated areas in the wetlands and removing contaminated surface water from
the ponded area, the selected alternative will address the principle ecological threat by
significantly reducing the contamination available to ecobgic receptors. The selected
remedy will also restore these degraded wetlands to a higher functional value through
revegetation. Human health risks are currently at acceptable levels.
The selected alternative addresses 7.3 acres of contaminated wetlands which constitutes
11,500 cubic yards of contaminated soils and sediment This contaminated soil and
sediment will be disposed of at an appropriate off-site facility. The capital, operation and
maintenance, and present worth costs are estimated at $6,314,110, $88,094 and
$7,232,391, respectively.
Although the selected alternative substantially addresses the ecological risk posed by
contamination in the wetlands, it does not address all wetland areas impacted by CLTL-
related contamination. The selected alternative addresses areas of contamination that
pose the greatest risk to ecological receptors. Furthermore, the selected alternative
restores functional value to the most damaged and degraded portions of the wetlands
adjacent to the CLTL facility while leaving intact the higher quality wetland. As a result,
the selected alternative is cost effective both financially and environmentally when
compared to a total removal and replacement of all wetlands in Cedar Swamp adversely
impacted by CLTL-related contamination.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
As previously noted, CERCLA §121(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. §9621 (b)(1), mandates that a
remedial action must be protective of human health and the environment, cost effective,
and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Section 121(b)(1) also
establishes a preference for remedial actions which employ treatment to permanently and
significantly reduce the toxicfty, mobility and volume of the hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants at a site. CERCLA §121(d), 42 U.S.C. §9621 (d), further
specifies that a remedial action must attain a degree of cleanup that satisfies ARARs
under federal and state laws, unless a waiver can be Justified pursuant to CERCLA
§121(d)(4), 42 U.S.C. §9621(d)(4).
20
-------
For the reasons discussed below, EPA has determined that the selected remedy meets
the requirements of CERCLA §121, 42 U.S.C. §9621:
Overall Protection of Human Heafth And The Environment
Control of surface runoff will eliminate the potential for loading of contaminants to the
wetlands from the CLTL facility. The removal of contaminated soils and sediments from
the three areas (ponded, swale, and adjacent impacted areas) will eliminate a persistent
source of contamination in the wetlands and will reduce the risk to ecological receptors.
This alternative includes the restoration of the degraded wetlands' functions and values
and will create a habitat of considerably greater value than what currently exists.
Compliance with ARARs
This alternative win comply with all chemical, location and action-specific ARARs including
RCRA requirements for transport and disposal of excavated soils and sediments and
wetland mitigation requirements of the Clean Water Act and the Freshwater Wetlands
Protection Act
Cost Effectiveness
The capital cost for this alternative is estimated at $6,314,110. This cost estimate
assumes that soils and sediments will be excavated to a depth of one foot. The annual
operation and maintenance cost is estimated at $88,094. The present worth cost, based
on a rate of return of 8%, will be $7,232,391. This alternative is the most protective of all
alternatives evaluated and is cost effective when compared to the cost of remediating all
wetlands impacted by past CLTL-related activities.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
Although this alternative does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment, EPA has
concluded that the available treatment alternatives have limited applicability to the site-
specific contamination and restricted implementability in a wetlands environment The
infeasibility of constructing on-site treatment system in the wetlands and the shortage of
applicable treatment technologies for organic rich wetland soils were the main factors
considered in rufing out on-site treatment as a remedial alternative. However, any
excavated material determined to be a RCRA characteristic waste will be appropriately
treated off-site prior to disposal.
The selected alternative will provide the best balance of trade-offs among the alternatives
with respect to the evaluating criteria. EPA and the NJDEPE believe that the preferred
alternative will be protective of human health and the environment, will comply with
21
-------
ARARs, is cost effective, and witi utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Because this action will result In
contamination remaining on site, in areas of the wetlands not included in the "hot spot"
areas to be remediated, CERCLA requires that the site be reviewed every five years. If
justified by the review, EPA will revise the remedial decision as necessary.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative presented in the Proposed
Plan.
22
-------
APPENDIX I
FIGURES
-------
PROJECT AREA
COM
Mra Uf V J)trt£ft7
-------
Primary
Settling
Lagoons
(Lagoon A)
Enclosed Settling Tank
And Drum Storage Area
Secondary
Settling Lagoons
Former Final
Settling La;oon
Residential
COM
ptowwrt J atntotmtnt
. ceitmiitt.
CHEMICAL LEAMAN
SITE MAP
Figure No. 2-
-------
CHEMICAL LEAMAN
STUDY AREA
Figure No. 3
-------
•SD-20 A
A
South Of Ponded Area
Ponded Area
East Of Derm
South Of Swale
Swale Area
LEGEND
• SURFACE SOL SAMPLE
O SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENT SAMPLE
• SEDIMENT SAMPLE
SOI BORING
A VfETlANDS
West Of Swale
PARKING AREA
CHEMICAL LEAMAN
AREA DELINEATION MAP
Figure No. 4
A mono9tf/n«nf consultants
-------
ONDED
AREA
* A
A A A
A A A
A A A
ADJACENT IMPACTED
AREA
CEDAR SWAMP
A
ftoum wd «Mt «f torn ft}
WETLANDS
BOUNDARY
Hirr
Figure 5
CONTAMINATED AREAS
-------
Existing Surface
Water Elevation
Existing Ground Elevation
Revegetate WHh Trees And Shrub Species
Height Of Soil Cover
Varies 6-For
Above Surface Water •
Excavated Waterway
Contaminated Soil
COM Camp Dresser & McKcc
Figure , 6
Schematic Of Soil Cover Over Contaminated Areas
Chemical Leaman
-------
Tree Island
Berm
over
SoH-cov«r«d
areas
Shrub
Swamp
Shallow Water Maroh
Cross section of a typical wetland area showing soil-covered areas as revegetated hummock tree
Islands. The variation in topography maximizes habitat values. Shallow marshes are planted with
marsh grasses, deeper marshes with emergents and floating leaved herbaceous species.
Hummocks are planted with wetland tree and shrub species.
Figure • 7
Revegetatfon Cross Section of Soil-covered Areas
COM Camp Dresser & McKee
Chemical teaman
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLES
-------
TABLE 1 .
LIST OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
TRANSPORTED BY CLTL
Allyl alcohol
2-*ec-Butyl-4,6, -dinitrophenol
p-Cbloroaniline
Ethylenediamine
Acrylic Acid
Aniline
Benzene
n-Butyl alcohol
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethene
Chloroform
Chloromethane
2-Chlorophenol
Creosote
Cresols
Cresylic acid
Cvmene
Cyclohexane
Di-n-Butyl phthalate
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,l-Dichloroethene
Diethyl phthalate
Diacthylamine
Dine thy Icarbaaoyl chloride
1,1-Diaethyl hydrazine
Dimethyl phthalate
Tetrachloroaethane
Toluenediamine
Toxaphene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Urethane
2,3-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-Octyl phthalate
Dipropylamine
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl acrylate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl aethacrylate
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
Bydrazine
Isobutyl alcohol
Maleic anhydride
Kaleic hydrazine
Methanol
Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Paraldehyde
Phenol
Phthalic anhydride
N-Propylamine
Pyridine
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
Toluene
Toluene diisocyanatc
Tribromomethane
Trichloroethene
Xylene
-------
TABU 2
Oeoical
ef Volatile
Analytical tesults
SUftfACE SOIL
Detected
•araneter
CHLOROXETKANE «C/kfl
MOWKETHAHE UB/kg
METHYLEKE CHLORIDE «B/kg
ACETONE CS/kg
CARBON DISULHDE «/kg
1,2-DICHLOROETIffIIE (TOT* UB/kg
TRICHLOROETBYLENE *C/kg
IEKZENE («/kg
TETRACKLOR0ETHTIEHE ac/kj
149 9*TaTTftmn naVlaTTBAtf etea*/iM>
TOIUEKE CS/kg
CKLOKOBEKZEME a«/kg
nKTLBEKZNE ajg/kg
STTSENE «B/kg
rTLENES CTOTAL) t«/kg
Rits/Saople*
1 10
1 10
7 14
3 12
2 10
2 11
4 12
2 9
« 13
1 •
• w
9 13
5 12
2 9
1 9
1 9
Miniaui) - Maxiaua
33.00 - 33.00
440.00 - 440.00
17.00 • 340.00
150.00 • 930.00
4.00 . - 10.00
6.00 • 21.00
11.00 • 120.00
12.00 • 590.00
10.00 • 690.00
COO • 13.00
• <^F ••••*»
1.00 • 3200.00
5.00 - 7400.00
•110.00 - 9700.00
9.00 - 9.00
57000.00 r 57000.00
Average
33.00
440.00
160.71
403.33
7.00
13.50
43.00
301.00
U2.«7
13.00
373.11
1510.40
4905.00
9.00
57000.00
1) The •ininiB and tudmm range, and average fneturie hits only.
2) Duplicate aaaptes vert net included in the calculations.
3) Data qualifier* were net eenaidered.
Saoplts represented In tfcia tabie include:
119, SS-A1, K-A2, SS-JO. SS-A4
$S-B1, S5-B2. CS-S3. SS-Wt. SS-C1
K.-C2, SS-C3. SS-W, SS-CS. SS-C6
SS-01. JS-02. SS-D3, «S-«. SS-U
SS-15, SS>U.
-------
i-Chaafcal
TABLE 2
Analytical tasults
SCBIKOIT
try of VolatUt
Dttactad
Paraneter
CHJOtOCTMANE UB/kg
VII71 CHLMIOE UB/kg
NEnTLENC CHLORIDE UB/kg
ACETONE UB/kg
CAttON OISULFIOE UB/kg
}^-01CMLOMETNENE (TOTA UB/kg
CHLOROFORM MB/kg
2-$tfTAWN£ UB/kg
KBEVE UB/kg
TDUENE UB/kB
VaftCnOtti'tiZiTnc UQ/Kfl
XYLOES (TOTAL) UB/kg
•1tS/S«plM
2 . 8
1 r
22 28
26 SO
6 12
S - 8
1 7
15 18
1 T
27 SO
«•«
it
2 8
Minima - Hutu
52.00 190.00
44.00 4&.00
21.00 240.00
18.00 6400.00
9.00 25.00
20.00 31.00
7.00 7.00
50.00 3100.00
20.00 20.00
2.00 650.00
Sflfl TK AA
•IW f^*WW
50.00 57.00
Avcragt
121.00
u.oo
126.50
1094.69
13.67
26.67
7.00
4U.OO
20.00
132.22
»*«
• Bw
53.50
1} Tb« afnfAa and •uiiuB ranpt, and awrcgt fneludt hit* only.
2) Delicate Mtqplct Mtr* not ineludtd in tht ealeultttent.
3) Sat* qualifiers wart not cantidarad.
lcs rtprasantad in this tablt include:
»-1. SO-2. SO-3, B-4. «D-5
SD-6, SD-7, SD-8, »-9, $0-10
SD-11. SO-12, SD-13, SD-U, »-1U
SO-15, SO-U. SO-16A, SD-166. »-17
SD-18. SO-19, $0-20, $0-21, $D-22
$D-23. $0*24. $0-25, $0-26. $0-27
$0-28.
-------
Chemical ttran Analytical tesults
SWMCE MIL
iry of Seafvolatile
Detected
Parameter
PKEB3L ug/kg
1.4-OICUtOROBE«IHE ug/kg
1,2-BJCHLOROBEXZEHE ug/kg
IISf2-OM.OROI$OP«Om>E7 ug/kg
inOOIC ACID ug/kg
2,4-DlCXLOROPHEWJL ug/kg
f,2,4-TKlCMlOt08E)QENE ug/kg
1UPHTBALCTE ug/kg
2-ttTHTUUmBAl£HE ug/kg
ACCIAMfTMEKE ug/kg
BltEQOfUMx ug/kg
ti-iinosoDiraExriAMiiiE ug/kg
PMEUVTH8£KE UB/kg
AXTlUCEliE ug/kg
FUXKANTltEKE ug/kg
PT2BC ug/kg
UTYiitN^TiMnjiALATE UB/kg
3,3'*X>ICHIOR8BEXZXD1HE ug/kg
IEK20 (A) ARTttACEKE ug/kg
CKWSEME ug/kg
8 IS <2-E7HTLB£m> PHTHA ug/kg
D I -H-OCTYimmUTE ug/kg
B£X20{B}FUX9eAKTMEKE UB/kg
SEIOOCO rUXKAVTHENE ug/kg
IEGO CA> W«£K UB/kg
IK9ENO C1.2,3-n» mEKE UB/kg
BEK28 CG.H.I) KXTLENE ug/kg
Rits/Saaples
6 21
1 20
4 21
1 20
3 20
2 20
4 20
6 21
7 21
1 20
1 20
2 20
7 21
9 21
9 21
7 20
11 21
11 21
3 20
2 20
7 21
8 21
18 21
3 20
13 21
12 21
8 20
7 20
10 20
HinicuB - NaxisuB
120.00 • 590.00
400.00 - 400.00
130.00 - 2000.00
150.00 - 150.00
520.00 - 1100.00
420.00 • 510.00
170.00 • 3700.00
110.00 - 5500.00
85.00 • 16000.00
390.00 • 390.00
1300.00 - 1300.00
. 150.00 - 590.00
280.00 - 11000.00
120.00 • 5600.00
84.00 • 550.00
100.00 • 14000.00
140.00 • 1600.00
130.00 - 2100.00
270.00 • 30000.00
1900.00 • 1900.00
83.00 • 1000.00
130.00 • 1000.00
310.00 - 84000.00
100.00 - 4400.00
220.00 • 2000.00
170.00 - 1200.00
230.00 • 1200.00
260.00 - 1900.00
410.00 - 2800.00
Average
301.67
400.00
785.00
150.00 •
776.67
465.00
1415.00
1028.33
2413.57
390.00
1300.00
370.00
2648.57
916.67
195.56
2144.29
521.82
853.66
4494.00
1900.00
449.00
510.00
15547.78
1546.67
803.85
565.00
856.25
1000.00
1251.00
1} The »!ni«uB and BaxiauB range, and average include hits only.
2) Duplicate Maples were net included in the calculations.
3} data qualifiers uere not considered.
Srples represented in this table include:
•19. SS-A1. K-A2, SS-A3. JS-M
tt-11. SS-B2, S-VI3. SS-U, SS-C1
SS-Q, K-a. SS-C4, SS-CS, SS-C6
SS-B1, SS-02. SS-03, SS-W, SS-14
JS-15, $S-t6.
-------
.
Chemical Luaen Analytical Result*
$EOI«KT
Sinury of Sea {volatile
Detected
Parameter
PKENCt ug/kg
BEKZOIC ACID ug/kg
1,2,4-TWaflOWBEHZEHE ug/kg
2-xrrKYUIAPHTHAlENE ug/fcg
DlMETHYLWiTJUUlTE US/kg
ACENAPKTHENE ug/kg
DIETHTIPHTHAUTE ug/kg
N-KITKOSaO!PKENTUKIN£ ug/kg
PMENAJmoEKE ug/kg
AXTHUCEME ug/kg
FLUOUBTHEHE ug/kg
PTXEKE ug/kg
IVTTLtEirnWrrKAUTE ug/kg
3,3'-DJCHl.OR08£KJDIII£ ug/kg
BEKZO (A) AMTttACEJiE ug/kg
CHRTSESE ug/kg
tIS C2-ETJTrLHEXTL) PKTKA ug/kg
Dl-X-OCTrtPHTHAUTE ug/kg
BEKZOCR>FLUOXAKTHENE ug/kg
BEK20CO FLUORAKThEKE ug/kg
BEKZO CA) PTREHE ug/kg
JKDENO {1.2.3-O) PTRENE ug/kg
BENZ9 tC.H.l) PERTLENE ug/kg
Hits/Staples
* 27
2 27
2 26
1 26
2 26
1 26
1 26
6 28
2 26
5 27
2 26
« 27
1 26
1. 26
2 26
3 26
22 • 31
3 26
a 28
7 27
8 27
8 28
7 28
Minion • Maxima
190.00 • 880.00
980.00 • 1700.00
270.00 - 1400.00
290.00 - 290.00
670.00 - 1500.00
190.00- • 190.00
2800.00 - 2800.00
140.00 • 1600.00
140.00 • 860.00
130.00 - 700.00
170.00 - 1100.00
250.00 • 1000.00
320.00 • 320.00
3100.00 • 3100.00
390.00 • 1100.00
460.00 • 1200.00
100.00 • 49000.00
230.00 • 710.00
270.00 - 980.00
210.00 ' - 430.00
220.00 • 1800.00
270.00 • 1100.00
260.00 • 1800.00
Average
567.50
1340.00
835.00
290.00
1085.00
190.00
2800.00
955.00
500.00
404.00
635.00
585.00
320.00
3100.00
745.00
920.00
13932.95
450.00
578.75
348.57
925.00
642.50
774.29
1) The •iniaua and MXinun range, and average include hit* only.
2) Duplicate sanples were net included in the calculations.
3) Data qualifiers were net considered.
Samples represented in this table include:
»-1, S>-2. SD-3. $0-4, $0-5
$0-6, $0-7, $0-8, $0-9, $0-10
$0-11, $0-12. $0-13, SD-K, $0-14A
$0-15, $0-16, $0-16A, $0-168, $0-17
$0-18, $0-19, $0-20, $0-21, $0-22
$0-23, $0-24, $0-25, $0-26, $0-27
$0-28.
-------
TABLE 2
Xhemtcal leanan Analytical lesults
SURFACE SOIL
Suwry of Inorganic Analytes Detected
Paraaeter
ALUMIKUM ag/kg
AXT1KWT ag/kg
ARSENIC ag/kg
IARIUM ag/kg
IERTU.IUM ag/kg
CAWIUM ag/kg
CALCIUM ag/kg
CHROMIUM ag/kg
COBALT ag/kg
COPPER ag/kg
IRON aj/ks
LEAS ag/kg
HAGNESIUM ag/kg
NANCAMESE ag/kg
KERCUXT as/kg
NICKEL ag/kg
POTASSIUK • ag/kg
SELENIUM ag/kg
SODIUM ag/kg
THALLIUM ag/kg
VAXA9IUK ag/kg
ZINC ag/ka
PHENOLS ag/kg
Hiu/Sanples
21 21
3 18
22 22
21 21
18 21
20 22
21 21
22 22
21 21
20 22
21 21
22 22
21 21
21 21
12 22
21 22
21 21
3 21
18 18
1 21
21 21
22 22
1 1
Minion - Mazfan
3810.00 - 28600.00
13.80 - 15.10
3.60 - 96.90
34.80 • 2210.00
0.24 - 2.50
1.70 - 33.10
331.00 • 50200.00
5.00 • 197.00
1.70 - 24.30
16.00 • 184.00
7540.00 • 30700.00
5.90 - 600.00
413.00 - 78000.00
22.10 • 315.00
0.12 - 1.40
2.20 • 41.90
170.00 - 2180.00
0.89 - 3.10
45.00 • 525.00
0.69 - 0.69
10.60 • 76.50
S.80 • 767.00
4.55 - 4.55
Average
11803.33
14.60
27.58
477.37
1.05
11.68
17714.24
32.77
10.05
61.84
16615.24
236.94
10198.48
166.42
0.59
21.69
818.67
1.76
191.49
0.69
37.56
257.61
4.55
1) The erfniauB and aaxfajn range, and average include hits only.
2) Duplicate sasples were not included in the calculations.
3) Oata qualifiers nere not considered.
Saoples represented in this table include:
§19, SS-A1. SS-A2, SS-A3, SS-/U
SS-B1. SS-B2, SS-B3. SS-»4, SS-C1
SS-C2, SS-C3, SS-C4. SS-CS, SS-C6
SS-01, SS-02. SS-03. SS-W, SS-14
SS-«. SS-16.
-------
TABLE 2 •
Chemical L*aaw> Analytical Results
8EOIMEKT
fcanary of Inorganic Analytes Detected
Parameter
ALUMINUM ap/kB
WrriMOMY MB/kg
ARSENIC av/kg
IARIUM BB/ks
IERYLLIUM aB/ks
CADK1UM ae/kg
CALCIUM w/kB
OROKIUK ae/kfi
COeAlT MB/ka
COPPER aflAg
IKON «B/kg
LEAD a«/ks
HACNESIUM a«/kS
MANSANESE a«/kfl
NEROAT a«/kS
KICSL ac/kfi
POTASSIUM OB/kB
SELENIUM as/k9
SODIUM ae/kB
THALLIUM 8B/kfi
VANASIUK •B/kS
ZINC ae/ks
CTAXIOE 8«/kfl
| Hfts/Saoples
31 31
4 31
31 31
31 31
A 31
U 31
31 31
31 31
30 31
31 31
31 31
31 31
31 31
31 31
17 31
30 31
31 31
6 30
16 16
1 31
31 31
28 28
1 31
Mintaa • Maxfaun
702.00 33000.00
18.20 38.60
0.87 303.00
3.30 2330.00
1.40 2.«0
5.30 31.90
81.60 12700.00
2.50 182.00
1.20 38.20
2.90 196.00
578.00 27200.00
1.40 568.00
• 44.90 «070.00
4.10 318.00
0.13 2.10
3.40 65.20
83.60 2020.00
2.50 7.70
38.80 445.00
0.82 0.82
5.30 104.00
18.$Q 759.00
16.20 16.20
Avtrage
10130.71
24.45
58.10
459.99
1.68
12.43
6151.60
48 .56
tt.56
76.50
12971.87
219.85
1795.90
110.81
1.08
32.38 .
718.15
5.13
255.49
0.82
54.24
270.91
16.20
t) The afnioun and aaxiaua ranee, and averege include hits only.
2) Duplicate »*mple« Mere net included in the calculations.
3] Data qualifiers nere net considered.
Saoples represented in this table include:
»-1, SO-2, SD-3, SD-4, »-5
SD-6, SO-7. SD-8, $0-9, SO-10
SD-11, SP-12, SD-13, SO-14. SD-WA
SO-15, $0-16. SD-16A. SD-168, $0-17
SD-18, »-19, $0-20, SD-21, SD>22
SD-23, »-24, SD-2S. SD-26. $0-27
$D-28.
-------
tiieatcat leeaen Analytical ftesulta
SUtfAQE SOIL
Sunary of Pesticide Coaeeunds Detected
Parameter
4,
-------
UBLE2
Chemical leaner) Analytical tesults
SEDIMENT
Suaery of Pesticide Ceopeivids Detected
Parameter
4.4'-BOE . ugAg
4.4«-WD US/kg
ttDCSULFAX SULFATE US/kg
4.4 '-DDT gg/kg
A8DO.OR-1254 ug/kg
Hitt/Sasples
19 31
10 30
1 30
1 31
2 30
Minion - Maximo
ie.oo • • 4300.00
150.00 - 44000.00
360.00 • 360.00
240.00 - 240.00
2900.00 - 7400.00
Average
6(1.11
4896.00
360.00
240.00
5150.00
1) The ariniauB and aaxiaun range, and average Include hits only.
2) Duplicate sanples Mere not included in the calculations.
3^ Data qualifiers Mere not considered.
les represented in this table Include:
«D-1. SD-2. $0-3, $0-4, SB-5
$0-6, SO-7, $0-8, $0-9, SO-10
$0-11, $0-12, $0-13, $0-14, SO-14A
$0-15, SD-16, SO-16A, $0-161, SD-17
$D-18, $0-19, $D-20, $0-21, SD-22
SD-23. $0-24, $0-25, SO-26, $0-27
SD-2S.
-------
TAOLO 3 .
SUMMARY OF THE OU3 MEAN AREA CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATION
Soot* of
Swtte
:.';«%* if A'.".'*.•*..'.•;..*•.'. '.'•. *..•'•..*..".•' .'..v.-'t •'•*• ••' -v.'\v.//£V.'riV£V."^* Wvi'.&;v;?.*£siv .v.,
vto^
SouTSof
Ponded
IPli
Surface
Cooper. Lake
DROMOKBTHANB
METMVLBNB CHtORIDB
CAROONDISULPB
2-ftUTANONB
TOICHJLOROTTMBNB
TCTRACIILbROBTHBNB
ND
440
'lM
7
43
ND
ND
ND
"'•'^'•tltfS**?
i^^nD^sfK
ND
:r|lN»::
13
m?*-'-
CHLOnOBEKnBNB
ffTHVLnB
STYROND
ND
NA(I)
lll*»*
ND
2«
ND
ND
ND
ND
S?.?S$
S'Wit
ND
•ND|
ND
NA(I
NA(I
M^
.% ..» T.iV.
ND
i!flssaj.|«KfflSf
•vss;i-.-nU:5j*j
ND
::is?s:iiisps«:
;s-;^;NDKi5iif;
ND
ND
ND
'P
ND
¥ib^
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
M
»..v
249
''^"'V'ND'"'?'".
"""ND"'"'
y M;«M^ :•.•/••«<*• 4W >
«.?.*.;• j*.-.y.i. %. f.Mf'
:?•;• V->>x*;'"v>" '•'•' * C' •
,..,. ™ ..
ND
:78580
;:'.^::&|j|MO
SOMtVOLATtLOS (ppM
vd^||fPfii
1 ,4^(CHLOROBBM7nNn
DIS(>CHLOKOISOrnOPYL]rrHHR
2,4-OICHLOROrHBNOL
NAfHTMALENE
400
150
4«S
134
Mri"
ND
ND ,*
ND
m
ND
NDX *
ND
Nd
ND
2000
ND
> /..•
ND
ND
(935
3500
ND
ND
ta>*<
ND
NDV
ND
ND .
ND
ND ''
ND
ND
!400
ND
ND
ND
ND
,
ND
'
ND
NA(I)
NA(I)
NA(I)
ND
Ntf
ND
urf'
NU ,
ND
kD
ND
ND
'.Hb
ND
ND
ND
^jj
ND
ND
Nri
ND
tw
ND
Nr
ND
NO
ND
ND
Ntf
ND
-------
TADLO 3 (Coatlnned)
'SUMMARY OP run ous MEAN AREA CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATION
:M .'
- .. .
^.&"^-ki
Jfoittfetf
of
Ponded
ttcrnifZ
DIMETHYL PHTHALATB
binBNZDFURAN
biBTHYLMttHAi
N-NITROSODIPHBNYLAMINB
ANTIIRACeNB
PLUORANTHBNB
fynBNtf $*3*£$
BUTYL DBNZYL PHTHALATB
BBNZO(A)ANT11RACBNB
CHRYSBNB> &£$ 4 SCH^
DIS(>BTHYLHBXYL)PHTHALATB
DENZO(D)FLUORANTHBNB
DENZD(A)PYRENB
OBNZD(0,H,l)rORYLCNB
TOTAL SVOCi
TOTAL PimiALATBS
v "•. TOTAL; AROMATICS
rosttciDBs/rcnt (ppt»)
390
?,< s
370
1248
131
339
695
(900
* 3W
V^<1
15117
866
942
925
820
30297
16502
1 3347
ALtmiN ,
4.4MDOO
CNDRIN>
4.4LODD
NO
797
»«> 65
95
< < 291
NO
ND
1300
212
797
270
793
7^18
17443
_%824
J237
1960
ND
ND
11000
^"x 5600
350
980
1540$
ND
20480
"17 4400
330
j 170
230
410
1500
ND
' .• \ <4^uuh
•• ZWV
1500
708
ND
320
ND
10931
400
1X7; 430
450
660
ND
ND
ND
Mb
ND
NO
410
545
390
170
ND
*} Mb t:
ND
ND
' %* i
ND
25000
«93
"ll80
720
7600
405
•30
NA(I)
JW
NA(I)
,NA(I)J
|NA^ Hrf?r
ND
ND
N°!
ND,
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
31378
* 9755
17903
94616
,*' 32270
47411
<"i 3935
21781
3850
15551
880
35032
25560
-:-?'3630
17475
'^"' 3650"
8500
*«V J680
8969
3589
Nb
426
141
101
NO
Mb
ND
185
Mo
ND
213
Mb
I
Nb
1390
^ND
823
S55
3M
ND
N/XI)
NA(I)
896
*
7895
0.10
0.03
0.13
Nb
NO
ND
ND
NO
" NO >"'
ND
-
-------
TADLB 3 (Coa Hatted)
SUMMARY OP TUB OU3 MEAN AREA CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATION
•Sf?f*vS^
'•*"*»*& 'jMs!im&»IIff
:.: !. .1 :.>K-J.5 .
We«W
-Sim,
Sourn of
Ponded-
form
nrimeter
.Suffice
Cooper Lfke .
*i
M •
AROCHLOIH254
'
i'«w
2133
HD
NO
NO
TOTAL TOST
2200
;$!&?
ND
NO
7400
^'^i^S-'fS.F'O.-:;
ND
240
ftl:
NO
2900
ND
ND
NO
"NO •
1340
692
238
768
2080
1063
8791
71
A^SBMIC V'
OARIUM
CHROMIUM
fcOBALTv
correR
MCRCURY
NHskBy^
21MC
hv-^.^'S^'-s
592.98
62.01
70.07
061
278.02
317.40
45.60
52.90
tf.80
0.49
295.00
192.78
i?i.M5
19.55
ND
lf
79.68
356.00
V30
75.50
1.20
iib
310.90
808.50
70.30
jffmj
I''""
104.70
390.40
226.50
0.42
6.02
0.07
b:bi
0.10
!-::t: • -
^0.13
0.00
r*:o'7
0.47
0.03
ND
ND
ND
I4JI
"$WWf>iii:
$V$%W3"*i
26.48
0.02
Notes:
1. ND denotes not delected.
2. NA(I) denote! organic dill not available for this area. Data has been Included with surface soil data.
-------
Cheafcat teaaen Analytical tesults
UKFACE 1MTCR
Suanary of Inorganic Analyt** Detected
tarwneter
AUMINUN UB/l
MTIKONT tig/ 1
usaric ug/i
tAiuiM ug/ i
lOTLLIUK UB/l
DUmiUM ug/1
CA1XIIM wg/t
catDKiiM ug/i
COMLT ug/l
tswa ug/l
ItM ug/1
tfio ug/l
MOCSIIM ug/l
NUSUESE ug/t
IKStUtT ug/1
C7BCEL ug/l
FOMSSXUK ug/l
SCDItK ug/l
vuwaiUN ug/l
21HC ug/l
Mits/Sanplcs
10 10
3 10
10 10
10 . 10
3 10
2 10
10 10
5 10
7 10
€ 10
10 10
9 10
10 10
10 10
1 10
e 10
10 10
10 10
6 10
10 10
Mtniun - M«x!nn
147.00 .49500.00
U.30 21.20
3.40 285.00
42.80 1260.00
2.80 4.&0
18.00 28.90
11100.00 . 150000.00
6.40 116.00
5.20 101.00
3.20 246.00
3*90.00 142000.00
0.00 4U.OO
5040.00 46200.00
264.00 2240.00
0.88 0.88
5.70 165.00
3410.00 310000.00
5120.00 18400.00
11.00 260.00
0.00 2120.00
Average
13229.00
16.70
74.37
415.34
3.33
23.45
45580.00
67.84
41.07
96.97
45592.00
129.81
17879.00
1009.10
0.88
72.78
38083.00
11718.00
118.77
472.04
1) Ike afnfaa and nxitun range, and •vtrage include hits only.
2) Suplieate Maples were not included in the calculations.
3) Oata qualifiers were not considered.
represented in this table include:
SM. »-2. SW-3, SV-4, SV-8
SU-9. SV-10. SW-11, SU-27. SW-28
-------
Chemical Laaaan Analytical tesults
SURFACE WATER
•-..
aVjBsary of Volatile Compounds Detected
Paraaeter
Hits/ttsple*
Kinisun • Maxima
Average
turnery of iantvolatile
Detected
•araaetcr
BIS C2-E7HTLHEXTI) Pf
| Nit*/S«plM
rw us/l | 2 9
Miniaua - Maxiaua
4.00 • 17.00
Average
10.SO
ry off »«t!eidi
0«ttet*d
Psraneter
ALM1V ug/l
^.i'-COE «jg/l
E««I«, TOTAI UB/l
4,* '-MO ' US/I
AlPKAOdOftDARE us/l
CA»«-CHlOttUWE us/l
Hits/Staples
1 10
5 10
1 10
2 10
1 10
1 10
Hinftua < • lUxiaua
.05 0.05
.02 0.24
.03 0.03
.13 * 0.24
.03 0.03
.02 0.02
Average
0.05
0.07
0.03
0.19
0.03
0.02
1) The arinina and BBxiaua range, and average include hfts only.
2) Duplicate sample* wert net included in the calculations.
3) Sara qualifiers mra not considered.
Staples represented in this table include:
SV-1. $v-2, »w-3, «W-4, SU-8
SV-9. SW-10. SW-11, SW-27. SU-28
-------
TABLE4
Chemical Leaman Analytical Remllt
COOPER LAKE SEDIMENT SAMPLES
Organic/Inorganic Delect
SAMPLBNAMB->
GROUP! VOLATILES
ACETONE
1-1
I.M-1
BACKGROUND
SD-30 SD-31 SO-32
400.001 270.001 300.00 J
7.00J
16.001 450.001 34.00J
GROUP: SEMIVOLATILES
B»a-BrHYUCXYL)PHTHALATB **|
BNDOSULPAN SULPA1B
GROUP: INORGANICS
ALUMINUM
ARM-NIC
BARIUM
CHROMIUM
«gjti I7WO.OO
•**»
«•**«
COPTER
IRON
LEAD
29HU0 aio.09
4.40 *J I3.80*J
MI.OOJ 29.80BJ I68.00J
3760J 6.80J I4.40J
W.50B1 130 01 &50BJ
40.90 El W.TOEI 4&90BI
MR*! 20900.00 5140.00 9720.00
136,001 48.001 . 222.001
24.00 Bl 5.40 Bl 21.90 Bl
CSD-I _CSD-t tCSO-3 CSD-4 CSD-5 CSD-d tCSD-t _
199.00 14400.00 14100.00 34400.00 M20.00 33lttOO 800.09 3270.00 4230.09
170 31.80 J 43801 8100 J 140 170 150 100 1.80
I4.80BI 27.30BI HOB 120 B 130 B
QUALIFIERS
B • Vrfw bkaallMlkeCROLM •Tcatarlhaclle IDL
J-G>ilmjled
H *
W • PM-
-------
TABLE4
Chemical Leaman Analytical Results
COOPER LA KB SOIL SAMPLES
Organic/Inorganic Delects
BACKOROUND
SAMPLE NAMB->
. SAMPLBTYPB->
GROUP: VOLAT1LBS
Tni f tnMH ••£•
TULuUno •g'Kg
GROUP: SBMIVOLATILBS 4- BBNZIDINB
DIS(2-BTIIYUIBXYL)PUTHALATE ngftg
GROUP: PBSTICIDBS/PCBt
•Mfnntfft 0AM «llt RATtt ••&•
BrllsUSULr ATI SULr AID •fig
GROUP: INORGANICS
ALUMINUM •**!
ARSENIC ««/kg
BARIUM ••«*«
CHROMIUM mg/kg
COBALT mg/kg
COPPER «g/*g
IRON ««/k«
LOAD M£/kg
NICKEL ng/kg
SS-BGI
SOIL
I60.00J
. 9910.00
14.00V
66.IOJ
15.20 J
4.90 B
9.80 BJ
13700.00
36.90 J
8.00 B
SS-B02
SOIL
150.001
At ml
7480.00
8.IO*J
• 46.00 BJ
12.00 J
4.IOB
8.40 BJ
12200.00
26.20 J
6.50 B
SS-B03
SOIL
94.00 J
*7m t
3600.00
5.90 »J
17.80 B
6.00 J
1.90 B
4.80 B
7600.00
27.60 J
2.00 B
CSS-t
SOIL
1MI J
2IO.OOI
vtm
JW.UW
2020.00
2.IONV
II.40B
6.40
MOB
2,70 B
3570.00
9.50
I.90B
CSS-2
SOIL
190.00 J
mnt
JO.W
6010.00
13.70 NV
33.60 B
9.10
2.60 D
8.10
7540.00
25.10
5.IOB
CSS -3
SOIL
.,
130.00 J
29(0.00
14.00 N*J
18.70 B
3.90
1.60 B
2.90 B
4140.00
15.30
3.00 B
QUALIFIERS:
B - Vriie b IMI AM lfc« CRDL kit ^f*»t«r !!•• II* IDL,
J - BitiM«t«d
N - Spiked itMpU ntimtf •otwillla eoMlral Hmlti.
R - Rejected
U « Undetected
W • Post—digestion ipflke out of control Ihnhs.
• • Duplicate analjrgh not wlthh control limits.
-------
TABLE 5
CREATED WETLAND PLANT LIST
Botanical Name
Common Name
Tree and Shrubs
Acer rubuuu L»
Atnusngoca
Chamaecjparis thyoides
occidentalis T
Da laevajata
Frannu pcoBsyKanica Marsh.
Fficonus s^gra
Jn n ip» i itc Vifgmjana
Magnolia vogtaiana L.
Nyssa syh«ica Marsh.
Persea bortxmia (L.) Spreng.
QuercuslMolor
Safe species
L.
Herbs i
Cyperus ^ecies
Dulichins *rut><^
Eleocharis ^ectes
Sydrocotyte umbcHata L.
Leenia ojzoides
Juncus tSasas L.
Juncus senpoides Lam.
Nymphaeo odoraia Ait.
Panicum species
Peltandnnigmica (L.)
Polygonnm punctatum FI
Pontedoa eordata L.
(L)
Rhynchojpora
Scopus species
(Oakes) Fein.
Red maple
Speckled alder
Atlantic White Cedar
Common buttonbush
Smooth holly
Greenish
Black ash
Water-locust
Eastern Red Cedar
Sweetbay
Swamp tupelo
Red bay
Swamp white oak
Willow
American elm
Sedge
Flatsedge
BrirtonThree-way sedge
Spike rush
Manh pennywort
Rice cutgrass
Soft rush
Needle-pod rush
Fragrant white water-lily
Panic grass
KunthGreen arum
Dotted smartweed
Pickerelweed
Inundated beakrush
Bulrush
Arrowhead
-------
Table A
Chemical Leaman Operable Unit Three
Summary of Sediment/Soil Constituent Concentrations (mg/kg)
COMPOUND
Endosfen Suffate
PC6 (1248)
PCB (1254)
Benzofb)
Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene
ldeno{1.£3-CD)
Pyrene
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryirtum
Cadmium
Lead
Vanadium
FREQ.OF
DETECTION
8/17
1/17
3/17
9/17
6/16
4/16
«
17/17
2/14
18/18
17/17
15/18
15/18
18/18
17/17
MEAN
CONC.
0.13
0.42
0.81
0.8
0.75
0.80
11.370
4.5
28
499
0.67
11.4
235
33.5
•5%
UCL
0.22
0.8
1.5
1.2
0.98
1.1
21637
10
68.6
1416
1.4
59.8
1298
64.5
MAXIMUM
CONC.
0.8
1.6
2.9
2.0
1.2
1.5
28600
14.9
94.9
2210
2
33.1
600
59.6
-------
Table B
Exposure Pathways Considered in Human Health Risk Assessment
Current and Future Scenario
Adolescent Trespasser
• Incidental ingestion of sediments and soils of swale
Dermal contact with sediments and soils of swale
The trespasser is assumed to visit the site once a week, four
months out of the year, for twelve years.
-------
Table C
Noncarcinogenic Toxicity Factors for the Contaminants of Concern
Contaminant
Endosutfan Suifate
PCB1248
PCB1254
Benzo (b) Fluoranthene
Benzo (a) Pyrene
Ideno (123cd) Pyrene
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium •
Cadmium
Lead
Vanadium
RfD
5 x 10* (i)
7x10**(5)
7 x 10**(i)
NA
NA
NA
2(0)
4x104(i)
3x1Cr*(0
7 x 10* (i)
5 x 10* (i)
SxICT'O)
NA
7x10*
Notes:
i «= Toxicity Factor from USEPA IRIS Database
NA « Toxicity Factor is Not Available for the Compound
NAP « Toxicity Factor is Not Applicable for the Compound
o « Toxicity Factor from Other USEPA Documents
* « Toxicity Factor for Aroclor 1016 was used for Other PCB compounds
-------
Table D
Noncarcinogenic Risk Estimates for Adolescent
Trespasser in Current and Future Scenario
Contaminant
Endosuffan Sutfate
PCB 1248
PCB1254
Benzo (b) Fiuoranthene
Benzo (a) Pyrene
Ideno (123cd) Pyrene
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Lead
Vanadium
TOTAL HI
Estimated Daily
Intake (mg/kg)
2.1x10*
8.8 x 10*f
1.7x1CT7t
9.5x10*
9.7x10*
1.1 x 10'7
1.1 x 10*
8.9 x 10"7
2.9 x 10*
1x10-*
8.1 x 10*
2.1 x 10*f
3.7x10*
3.5x10*
Hazard
Quotient
2.7x10"*
7.4x10-*
1.3x1 0*
NA
NA
NA
6.8x10-*
1.5x10*
1.4x10*
1.2x10*
i.7x10*
4.1x10* '
NA
5.4x10-*
2.4x1 0*
Notes:
f «= Includes Dermal Exposure
NA Noncarcinogenic toxicity factor is not available for this compound
-------
Table E
Carcinogenic Slope Factors (SFs) for Contaminants of Concern
Contaminant
Endosuffan Sutfate
PCB 1248
PCB 1254
Benzo (b) Fluoranthene
Benzo (a) Pyrene
Ideno (123cd) Pyrene
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Lead
Vanadium
SF
NA
7.7(0
7.7(0
0.73 (e)
7.3 (e)
0.73 (e)
NC
NC
1.75 (o)
NC
4.3 (i)
NA
NC
Notes:
e ~ Toxic'rty factor from USEPA Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office in
Cincinnati, OH
i = Toxic'rty factor from USEPA IRIS Database
NA = Toxicity factor is not available for the compound
NC = The compound is a non-carcinogen and has no slope factor
o = Toxicity factor from other USEPA documents
* « Toxicity factor for Aroclor 1016 was used for other PCB compounds
-------
Table F
Carcinogenic Risk Estimates for Adolescent Trespasser
in Current and Future Scenario
Contaminant
PCB 1248
PCB1254
Benzo (b) Fiuoranthene
Benzo (a) Pyrene
Weno (123cd) Pyrene
Arsenic
Beryllium
TOTAL RISK
Estimated Dally
Intake (mg/kg)
e.8xio*t
1.7x10-7t
9.5 x 10-*
9.7x10*
1.1 x icr7
2.9x10*
8.1 x 10*
Cancer
Risk
6.6x10*
1.2x1 0*
9.6x10*
7.3x10*
8.6x10*
1.3x10*
6.5x10*
1.6x10*
Notes:
includes Dermal Exposure
-------
Table G -1
Contaminant Concentration Data in Surface Water
Used in the Environmental Evaluation (all values ug/l)
Contaminant
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Arodor 1254
DDT
EndosuBan Sulfate
Frequency of
Detection
10/10
10/10
2/10
6/10
6/10
10/10
9/10
1/10
6/10
10/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
Minimum - Maximum
147-49,500
3.4-285
18-29
6.4-116
3.2-246
3890 - 142,000
0-644
0.88
6-165
1 -2120
0
0
0
Average
13,229
74
23
68
97
45,592
130
0.88
73
472
0
0
0
-------
Table G - 2
Contaminant Concentration Data in Sediment
Used in the Environmental Evaluation (all values mg/kg)
Contaminant
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Arodor1254
DDT
EndosuKan Sutfate
Frequency of
Detection
31/31
31/31
14/31
31/31
31/31
31/31
31/31
17/31
30/31
28/28
2/30
1/31
1/30
Minimum - Maximum
702-33,000
1 -303
5-32
3-182
3-196
578-27,200
1 -568
0.13 - 2.1
3.4-65
19-759
2.9 - 7.4
0.24
0.36
Average
10.131
58
12
49
77
12,972
220
1
32
271
5.2
0.24
0.36
-------
Table G • 3
Contaminant Concentration Data in Surface Soil
Used in the Environmental Evaluation (all values mg/kg)
Contaminant
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Arodor1254
DDT
Endosutfan Sulfate
Frequency of
Detection
21/21
22/22
20/22
22/22
20/22
21/21
22/22
12/22
21/22
22/22
5/21
2/21
10/21
Minimum • Maximum
3810-28,600
3.6-95
1.7-33
5-197
16-184
7540-30,700
5.9-600
0.12 - 1.4
2.2-42
6.8-767
1.3-3.1
0.024 - 0.093
0.05 - 0.8
Average
11,803
27.6
12
53
62
16.615
237
0.6
22
258
2.2
0.059
0.2
-------
TABLE H POTENTIAL RECEPTORS CHEMICAL LEAMAN
SUBJECTS
Barred owl*
Soixvtria
eenneron
tttt roridfs ariauis
Bog turtle"***
CUmmys uuMenbergii
(tunics)
SsnCsh***
Ctntrerthidoe tp?
Vole(t)
Mierotussp?
Snapping tunic*****
Ckflydra serperuina
Bullfrog****
INVERTEBRATES
Body Weight
462 grams
162 grants
+100 grams
+ 20 grams
•+ 200 grams
EXPOSURE
Rests m swamp/ forest
Forages Bear nven and wet
woods
Fringe xones of swamps /
ponds/ marshes. Forages in
BOO. ^VCf 0X uUCJCCtt WlUl
Bags in water 4low
Muddy secams/ marshy
Water's edge eader logs
vegeution
Nests and rests in
nderground burrows
Prefer shallow stream*
with muddy bottom
12 months over wintering
in mod or dens
Rivers or ponds waters
in bottom in mud
Stream bed/ mud/surface
water
DIET
RodentsAards/cnyfish
Fish 40%/fasects30%and24%
rVminv' irftrtebntes
Approximately 50% vegeution
and invenebntcs
Approximately 36% vegeution
and carrion/ amphibia
(Ernst,CJi. 1972)
crayfish and beetles, dragonflies
and spiders(Iohnson. TJL 1987)
VcgetaticoAnvenebrates
•SITING DYNAMACLOCATION NOT REPORTED0992)
•"SITING (R£ ARNETTMAY J991)EAST ACCESS ROAD- YOUNG AND ADULTS
••••SITING (R. BARNETT JUNE. 1991) INLET CREEK WESTERN GROVE ROAD 9AOAM
•••••SITINGCR. BARNETTMAY4991) ON SITE WESTERN ASPECTBY PARKING LOTNUMEROUS
INCLUDING EGG LAYING
(OTncks observed
-------
Table T Potential Peefoalenl R*c»nfar Dathwaw
Receptor
Activity
Foraging
Nesting
Resting
Definition
Bullfrog
Rana
eatesbeinana
Bog Turtle
Ctemmys
muhtenbergu
Barred Owl
Strixvaria
Green Heron
Butrorides
striatus
High: cite
wide
.ow: Siting on
southern
Boundary of cite
jrefer streams.
-iabhatnot
iesirabte site
vide'
.ow: prefers
unning water
or foraging
Low:
Solitary subject
Avoids mtrusive
activities of humans
Lew: prefers
resting in canopy
Moderate:
brages within
sediment Range
3.5 to 1.0 Km.
educes
requency of
exposure
Moderate:
Nesting actvfty
observed in area I
Low;
Rest in canopy
and scrubs
Snapping Turtle
Chelyda serpentina
Low to
Moderate:
prefers slow
•noving streams
Moderate: travels
overland to nest
in upland areas
(numerous citing on
she-includes nesting on
•Me)
Moderate: in
mud
Invertebrates
High: cite
/vide
Low
Infrequent
probability of
exposure due to
habitat
requirements and
/or subject
behavior
Moderate
Occasional
exposure that may
be limited by
migration and /or
subject number
and /or foraging
range
Hioh
Desirable habitat
with frequent
foraging resting and
nesting
opportunities
largely confined to
site
-------
potential Ecological Heeeptor Pathways
*•• continued
Receptor
Aetvtty
Foraging
Nesting
Resting
Vole
Microtus sp?
High: she
vide
Sunfish
Cenfrarcn&asp?
Low: Siting on
southern
Boundary of
the, prefer
streams.
-iabrtalnot
iesirabto sit*
wide
Oefinftfons
Lew
IrtfreqtMnt
probability of
•xpocure due to
habitat
requirements
and /or subject
behavior
Oosesiona)
exposure that may
be limited by
migration and/br
subject number
and /or foraging
range
Hioh
Desirable
habitat with
frequent
foraging,
resting and
nesting
opportunities
largely confined
toaite
------- |